Over at Faith in Public Life.org, they have reprinted this article from Paul Campos of the Scripps-Howards news agency, and a law professor at the University of Colorado. The title of the column intrigued me - "Why there are almost no genuine atheists" - as I have known several genuine atheists, some with serious religion issues, some more cheery and nonchalant. Reading the column, which I would recommend if for no other reason than to be amazed that someone with such poor reasoning and writing skills is a lawyer, law professor, and columnist, provides a glimpse into one of the most annoying traits among those who seek to defend "religion" in the public sphere. Starting with Mitt Romney's recent statement about needing "a person of faith" in the White House, and poll data suggesting it would be easier to put a camel through the eye of a needle than to elect an atheist President of the United States, Campos goes on to assert that this information is irrelevant because atheism - as he defines it, to which we shall repair in a moment - is almost non-existent. Thus, it would seem, the atheist candidate pool being slim as it is, we need not worry ourselves over much about such obvious bigotry.
What Campos means when he speaks of atheism is (and I kid you not) a sense of some transcendent anchor or ground for a moral order. He even sites Edmund Wilson as "proof" that self-avowed atheists are actually hedging their bets by appealing to certain ethical norms between believers and non-believers. While my own take on Christianity is a deep sense of the centrality of a communal ethic, based upon the sacrifice of Jesus, given hope and new life through the resurrection, I would never claim that my view of ethics or morality is either exhaustive or exclusive. Bertrand Russell, John Stuart Mill, Richard Rorty, and Isaiah Berlin were and are highly concerned with the moral life. Each of them, in their own way, has worked toward understanding what it takes to live out a moral code, to live together as fellow human beings. Each of them, also, are quite cheerfully (or, in Russell's case, hostilely) atheist. I am not necessarily pushing any of these, or other, philosopher's points of view; I am saying that even a cursory understanding of contemporary thought could actually lead one to make a counter-argument to Campos.
More to the point, should one consider only the demands of the moral life as necessitating a belief in a transcendent order rooted in what can be called, for lack of a better word, "god" or "God", that is a thin reed to which to cling. This is exactly the kind of fuzzy, hazy nonsense I find so distasteful; by ignoring the real specifics of genuine religious and theological thought, not just in Christianity, but in any religion one could name, for some transcendent common denominator that can link us all back together in one big, happy, religious whole, we lose touch with the true diversity of human religious thought, and the problems, challenges, limits, and possibilities such thought offers us. To say that, in effect, Wilson isn't an atheist because he believes that we need to work to salvage our common humanity from a variety of threats to its existence isn't just wrong; it's silly, shallow, and offers non-sequiturs and anecdotes as arguments.
I am as deeply suspicious of people who want to salvage "god" from the ashes of contemporary atheist discourse as I am of atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins who would demand we leave religion behind us as so much adolescent baggage. Neither one deals with the realities we face, or offers helpful ways of working within that reality; it offers, instead, comfort and (in the case of Harris and Dawkins) publicity to those who print such nonsense. There are many atheists among us; we need to listen to what they say, and not be condescending to them, insisting that we know what they are really saying because we know that there is no moral order without "god".
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Christopher Lasch Rolls in His Grave
In the spring of 1991, a friend of mine encouraged me to purchase a new book by then-University of Rochester historian Christopher Lasch. The book, entitled The True and Only Heaven: Progress and Its Critics, is a tour-de-force, covering everything from the literature of Dickens to the theology of Jonathan Edwards to the French Syndicalists to the Boston busing controversy of the 1970's, and in the middle offers serious assesments of the careers of Reinhold Niebuhr, Edmund Burke, and Martin Luther King, Jr. as well. The argument of the book is simple: the ideological fantasy of a linear increase in human hapiness and self-satisfaction has run its course, but we do not as yet have the tools to grapple, ideologically, with its failures. Looking at alternatives from within the era of progress itself offers us a way forward. While not agreeing with everything Lasch said - I did not like his dismissal of the allegations of racism at the heart of the busing controversy, couched in suburban populist rhetoric - the book floored me for its clarity, breadth of research, and wealth of information.
Lasch made a name for himself towards the end of the 1970's with a book entitled The Culture of Narcissism, in which he argued that much of our social and cultural commentary on the previous decade was misguided because it failed to note that many of the hallmarks of what critics took to calling "the 'Me' decade" were actually indicative of a type of psychopathology known as narcissistic personality disorder. In the work in question, and its 1984 follow-up (less read in the age of Reagan, more's the pity), The Minimal Self, Lasch discusses in depth the nature of narcissism and the way it is displayed in a variety of dysfuntional social phenomena. A major point Lasch returns to again and again, because it is necessary, is that the so-called selfishness exhibited in social and cultural life was not indicative of a bloated sense of self, but rather in an absence of any meaningful, centered sense of identity. Much of what superficial criticism took as an absorption in the self was actually part of serious personality problems - much of America was exhibiting a lack of any sense of themselves, seeking to project into the world a self that they could then reabsorb, through social-psychological osmosis, as their true identity. The problem is that narcissists are incapable of holding on to identity for long because of the fundamental problem at the heart of their pathology - they lack the resources necessary for a secure identity. Thus, the search goes on.
Lasch's work was misappropriated and mis-interpreted at the time, and continues to be. In an updated edition of Narcissism, Lasch responds to a variety of critics by, in essence, restating his thesis, precisely because it was so poorly understood by his critics. Narcissism is not navel-gazing slef-indulgence. Rather, navel-gazing self-indulgence is indicative of any meaningful sense of individual identity, and shows that there is something profoundly wrong with social institutions which would foster such a pathology. Still, however, one can read accounts in which Lasch is invoked as a critic of selfishness, and it irks me, as someone who has read the work (and re-read it because it rewards multiple readings) to read people who use Lasch in ways that are diametrically opposed to the ideas he put forth.
Now we come to a study, written about here by Tristero at Hullabaloo and, with a slightly different take, here by my turtle-loving neighbors from the north (with a comment from Your's Truly), in which narcissism again rears its ugly head, yet this time - do we have to replay all the idiocy from the 1970's? - it again is misappropriated, misapplied, and an argument is made that tries to prove the exact opposite of what should be intended. A study claims that our youth are suffering from, you guessed it, narcissism. The evidence? Why, they're a bunch of self-centered, lazy creeps who don't do anything for anybody!
The study, flawed in a variety of ways, equates narcissism with self-centeredness, uses indicators that prove something else entirely (to which we shall return), and follows a methodology that would lose any other psychologist a Ph.D. on his or her dissertation. One point, made by Tristero, is that the study ignores the fact that the youth portrayed as self-indulgent do more community volunteer work than any other age-cohort. To dismiss this, essentially, as class work as the study-authors do, misses the point that this volunteer work is being done.
More on point, the study is hardly scientific because it seeks to prove something the researchers already took as axiomatic - that our youth are over-pampered, over-indulged, and we are reaping the rewards of parental leniency rooted in what is underrstood to be a failed liberal ideology. The problem, of course, is that these axioms are false - if you base scinece on untrue assumptions, your conclusions will be false as well. If I were to seek out physical confirmation of the luminiferous ether, and found it, that would prove nothing.
I do, however, have an laternative interpretation of the data gathered. Rather than indicative of narcissism among youth, the data could point to a struggle by well-grounded, psychologically healthy youth against the social pathology endemic to our political culture, a pathology most marked for its narcissism, its refusal to learn from mistakes or grant reality a separate, integrated existence (both hallmarks of narcissistic personality disorder), and a tendency to exaggerate one's own skills and gifts, even in the face of massive evidence to the contrary (another hallmark of the disorder). In other words, it is not youth who are narcissistic, but the ruling elites, the genereational cohort that was the subject of Christopher Lasch's original criticism. In short, Lasch was right, and we are reaping the fruits of that social pathology.
Lasch made a name for himself towards the end of the 1970's with a book entitled The Culture of Narcissism, in which he argued that much of our social and cultural commentary on the previous decade was misguided because it failed to note that many of the hallmarks of what critics took to calling "the 'Me' decade" were actually indicative of a type of psychopathology known as narcissistic personality disorder. In the work in question, and its 1984 follow-up (less read in the age of Reagan, more's the pity), The Minimal Self, Lasch discusses in depth the nature of narcissism and the way it is displayed in a variety of dysfuntional social phenomena. A major point Lasch returns to again and again, because it is necessary, is that the so-called selfishness exhibited in social and cultural life was not indicative of a bloated sense of self, but rather in an absence of any meaningful, centered sense of identity. Much of what superficial criticism took as an absorption in the self was actually part of serious personality problems - much of America was exhibiting a lack of any sense of themselves, seeking to project into the world a self that they could then reabsorb, through social-psychological osmosis, as their true identity. The problem is that narcissists are incapable of holding on to identity for long because of the fundamental problem at the heart of their pathology - they lack the resources necessary for a secure identity. Thus, the search goes on.
Lasch's work was misappropriated and mis-interpreted at the time, and continues to be. In an updated edition of Narcissism, Lasch responds to a variety of critics by, in essence, restating his thesis, precisely because it was so poorly understood by his critics. Narcissism is not navel-gazing slef-indulgence. Rather, navel-gazing self-indulgence is indicative of any meaningful sense of individual identity, and shows that there is something profoundly wrong with social institutions which would foster such a pathology. Still, however, one can read accounts in which Lasch is invoked as a critic of selfishness, and it irks me, as someone who has read the work (and re-read it because it rewards multiple readings) to read people who use Lasch in ways that are diametrically opposed to the ideas he put forth.
Now we come to a study, written about here by Tristero at Hullabaloo and, with a slightly different take, here by my turtle-loving neighbors from the north (with a comment from Your's Truly), in which narcissism again rears its ugly head, yet this time - do we have to replay all the idiocy from the 1970's? - it again is misappropriated, misapplied, and an argument is made that tries to prove the exact opposite of what should be intended. A study claims that our youth are suffering from, you guessed it, narcissism. The evidence? Why, they're a bunch of self-centered, lazy creeps who don't do anything for anybody!
The study, flawed in a variety of ways, equates narcissism with self-centeredness, uses indicators that prove something else entirely (to which we shall return), and follows a methodology that would lose any other psychologist a Ph.D. on his or her dissertation. One point, made by Tristero, is that the study ignores the fact that the youth portrayed as self-indulgent do more community volunteer work than any other age-cohort. To dismiss this, essentially, as class work as the study-authors do, misses the point that this volunteer work is being done.
More on point, the study is hardly scientific because it seeks to prove something the researchers already took as axiomatic - that our youth are over-pampered, over-indulged, and we are reaping the rewards of parental leniency rooted in what is underrstood to be a failed liberal ideology. The problem, of course, is that these axioms are false - if you base scinece on untrue assumptions, your conclusions will be false as well. If I were to seek out physical confirmation of the luminiferous ether, and found it, that would prove nothing.
I do, however, have an laternative interpretation of the data gathered. Rather than indicative of narcissism among youth, the data could point to a struggle by well-grounded, psychologically healthy youth against the social pathology endemic to our political culture, a pathology most marked for its narcissism, its refusal to learn from mistakes or grant reality a separate, integrated existence (both hallmarks of narcissistic personality disorder), and a tendency to exaggerate one's own skills and gifts, even in the face of massive evidence to the contrary (another hallmark of the disorder). In other words, it is not youth who are narcissistic, but the ruling elites, the genereational cohort that was the subject of Christopher Lasch's original criticism. In short, Lasch was right, and we are reaping the fruits of that social pathology.
Short Take
As I wrote here, I really like Al Sharpton. It seems Bob Somerby does, too. For the record - this is very good stuff, much better than anything coming from Washington.
Monday, February 26, 2007
The Stages of Right-Wing Denial of Global Warming and What They Reveal
For several months, I have read a variety of peices on the net and in print on global warming, and it is interesting to decode right-wing denials and the phony debate. In doing so, one finds that, at the heart of the matter is not any question of scientific data, although they pretend this is so; rather, what lies at the heart of denials of global warming is a fear of what doing something about global warming might mean for our present standard of living. Fear of economic dislocation - deindustrialization, a leveling down and scaling back of our economy - are the major factors at the heart of the phony debate. To put it simply - the global warming deniers do not wish for us to give up our grossly consumptive standard of living to save the planet, because we have, by gosh and by golly, earned the right to steal resources from planet earth and use them for our mutual destruction.
First, of course, come the denials. It is so easy to create a question for science and scientific theories, and the deniers have loads of them. Indeed, all one has to do is point out that someone, somewhere, is raising these questions, and blamo, you have a lack of scientific consensus. At the heart of this is the very real position that no science is exact, all scientific evidence is statistical in nature, and all theories are questionable. I have made the same points myself innumerable times. The problem, however, is that while all theories are questionable at some basic, ontological level, as a matter of practice, it would be difficult to imagine a less problematic theory than human-induced global warming. It satisfies all the criteria for successful theory no matter what philosophy of science one adheres to; it accounts for disparate data, it makes predicitons based upon certain assumptions, and these predictions are highly accurate, and lead to further predicitons that are also remarkably accurate.
So, presented with the success of the theory, the overwhelming evidence, etc., except for die-hards like Jim Inhofe, the matter shifts slightly something like this: "OK, fine, the earth is getting warmer. Can we with absolute certianty say the human activity is the source of the problem?" It is a short drive down a very crooked path to this rather prosaic, indeed scientific, question, to Dana "Dinosaur Farts" Rohrbacher. In a recent House committee hearing, Rohrbacher noted the fact of earlier global climate change, and offered dinosaur flatulence as a possible source. All one can say about such idiocy is "HAHAHAHAHAHA". Yet, the question is a sound one, and deserves the response that, yes, we can say, with quite great deal of certainty (more than is given with most scientific theories and models) that human activity is the leading contributing factor to global climate change. Again, evidence is brought out, part one of the whole "debate" is repeated, until we are all satisfied that both part I and part II of the whole "debate" has come to a complete stop and all trays are in their upright and locked positions.
We now move to the true heart of the matter. "What can we do about it?" Those who pose the question, often without waiting for a response from serious interlocutors, answer it themselves this way: "It would mean the end of our standard of living. No industry. No automobiles. We all go back to living in the Middle Ages. Our economy would collapse. Our civilization would end." Of course, no one makes this point except those who claim they don't believe the theory, so one could call this an exercise in bad faith. Actually, I claim they do believe in global climate change - how could they not? - and are terrified of the implications for what they hold to be our practically divine right to live more richly than any other nation on earth. Now, few serious policy makers are suggesting that we deindustrialize. Indeed, there are a variety of ways of making our lives carbon-neutral that actually encourage innovation and invention on the part of industry. This, alas, is also a threat to our current economic and social status quo, which these folks are defending without thought.
It is this, more than anything else that lies at the heart of global warming deniers. They understand the threat is very real, but see little more than any attempt to deal with the situation as a threat to the way things are. These folks liike the way things are. Of course, if Bangladesh is flooded out, or Florida disappears as a peninsula, or New York City becomes unlivable below 75th St., we might need to rethink the entire thing - yet, these are situations for which we need to be preparing now - socially, politically, and economically. Just one prediction - the desertification of much of the arable land og the American Plains - is quickly becoming a reality. Think about what that would mean in terms of food production, population redistribution, our economy. These are things for which we need to have contingencies, not suddenly rush in willy-nilly screaming "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
These are the reasons, I feel, that global warming deniers are disingenuous; they claim not to accept either the theory, or the preponderance of the evidence supporting the theory, or the cause. I believe they accept it whole-heartedly; what they fear are the implications for their privileged position in society and the the privileged position of America in the world. Such a threat cannot be borne, so they attack the theory, rather than admit what any sane person would admit - the prospects of the implications of global climate change scare them immensely.
First, of course, come the denials. It is so easy to create a question for science and scientific theories, and the deniers have loads of them. Indeed, all one has to do is point out that someone, somewhere, is raising these questions, and blamo, you have a lack of scientific consensus. At the heart of this is the very real position that no science is exact, all scientific evidence is statistical in nature, and all theories are questionable. I have made the same points myself innumerable times. The problem, however, is that while all theories are questionable at some basic, ontological level, as a matter of practice, it would be difficult to imagine a less problematic theory than human-induced global warming. It satisfies all the criteria for successful theory no matter what philosophy of science one adheres to; it accounts for disparate data, it makes predicitons based upon certain assumptions, and these predictions are highly accurate, and lead to further predicitons that are also remarkably accurate.
So, presented with the success of the theory, the overwhelming evidence, etc., except for die-hards like Jim Inhofe, the matter shifts slightly something like this: "OK, fine, the earth is getting warmer. Can we with absolute certianty say the human activity is the source of the problem?" It is a short drive down a very crooked path to this rather prosaic, indeed scientific, question, to Dana "Dinosaur Farts" Rohrbacher. In a recent House committee hearing, Rohrbacher noted the fact of earlier global climate change, and offered dinosaur flatulence as a possible source. All one can say about such idiocy is "HAHAHAHAHAHA". Yet, the question is a sound one, and deserves the response that, yes, we can say, with quite great deal of certainty (more than is given with most scientific theories and models) that human activity is the leading contributing factor to global climate change. Again, evidence is brought out, part one of the whole "debate" is repeated, until we are all satisfied that both part I and part II of the whole "debate" has come to a complete stop and all trays are in their upright and locked positions.
We now move to the true heart of the matter. "What can we do about it?" Those who pose the question, often without waiting for a response from serious interlocutors, answer it themselves this way: "It would mean the end of our standard of living. No industry. No automobiles. We all go back to living in the Middle Ages. Our economy would collapse. Our civilization would end." Of course, no one makes this point except those who claim they don't believe the theory, so one could call this an exercise in bad faith. Actually, I claim they do believe in global climate change - how could they not? - and are terrified of the implications for what they hold to be our practically divine right to live more richly than any other nation on earth. Now, few serious policy makers are suggesting that we deindustrialize. Indeed, there are a variety of ways of making our lives carbon-neutral that actually encourage innovation and invention on the part of industry. This, alas, is also a threat to our current economic and social status quo, which these folks are defending without thought.
It is this, more than anything else that lies at the heart of global warming deniers. They understand the threat is very real, but see little more than any attempt to deal with the situation as a threat to the way things are. These folks liike the way things are. Of course, if Bangladesh is flooded out, or Florida disappears as a peninsula, or New York City becomes unlivable below 75th St., we might need to rethink the entire thing - yet, these are situations for which we need to be preparing now - socially, politically, and economically. Just one prediction - the desertification of much of the arable land og the American Plains - is quickly becoming a reality. Think about what that would mean in terms of food production, population redistribution, our economy. These are things for which we need to have contingencies, not suddenly rush in willy-nilly screaming "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
These are the reasons, I feel, that global warming deniers are disingenuous; they claim not to accept either the theory, or the preponderance of the evidence supporting the theory, or the cause. I believe they accept it whole-heartedly; what they fear are the implications for their privileged position in society and the the privileged position of America in the world. Such a threat cannot be borne, so they attack the theory, rather than admit what any sane person would admit - the prospects of the implications of global climate change scare them immensely.
Is it Jesus or the Piltdown Man?
James Cameron, director of Terminator, Aliens, and Titanic knows something about resurrection. The endings of his movies are famous for dragging out the deaths of their villains (or heroes), attempting to wratchet up suspense by having a skeletal android emerge from a fire; an alien somehow survive the vacuum and absolute zero of space to threaten Sigourney Weaver; and Leonardo DiCaprio survives much longer than the roughly forty-five seconds he would have in the near-freezing North Atlantic waters (after survivng the sinking of a huge ocean liner) to slip romantically beneath the waves. This struggle against death - usually by evil, which seems more persistent and stronger than good - is a theme of his movies. It should come as no surprise, then, that Cameron is making a movie about an ossuary found in Israel a quarter-century ago and claiming it is the burial container of Jesus of Nazareth. Yes, that Jesus.
Is it possible? Of course it is! Indeed, such a find would be among the most important in archaeological history. It would force a fundamental re-thinking of Christianity and Islam which also holds to a less important, but still miraculous view of the resurrection of Jesus. It would force a fundamental reassessment of two-thousand years of western history. It would be earth-shattering beyond belief, as important as the discovery of intelligent life outside our solar system.
I have not seen the film, obviously, and I do not believe Cameron holds any animus towards Christianity. I refuse to believe there are sinister motives behind this project, and I think it would be interesting to view all the evidence - or at least the evidence Cameron presents in the film. If nothing else, if true, that stupid add that has run in The Nation for years claiming that Josephus of Alexandria invented the story of Jesus would end, because there would be proof from archaeology that he, indeed, existed and was not "fictional".
I think skepticism is in order, and not just because faith-based archaeologists are calling the whole thing in to question. For one thing, in the AP story by Marshall Thompson here (if the link doesn't work, let me know; you can find it at Yahoo!News, I am sure. I would, however, like to correct the link if possible, but it's one of those wierd long string of letters and numbers), I do not believe that history, archaeology, and theology should be used in the same breath as the Greek Orthodox archaeologist who defends The Church of the Holy Sepulchre as the site of Jesus burial. Quite simply - we don't know where Jesus was buried. This is like pointing to a stump and saying "This is where George Washington cut down that cherry tree."
Other comments, however, by other archaeologists, do raise important points. First, Jesus is a Hellenization of "Yeshua" (Joshua), a fairly common name. Mary, likewise, is the Greek form of "Miriam" (my daughter's name, BTW), also fairly common. The tomb containing the ossuaries was a fairly typical one for mildly prosperous Jerusalem-based merchants. So, not only didn't Jesus rise from the dead, he somehow moved his whole carpentry business (and his suddenly-discovered family, one assumes) from Nazareth to Jerusalem. He also was not a politico-religious figure at all, but apparently died naturally, and was laid to rest with his entire family. The Gospels are fiction, the concoction of strange minds bent on, what? Creating a religion out of whole-cloth?
The fact that this story dove-tails with (a) The Last Temptation of Christ, in which Jesus comes down from the cross, lives a long life with his wives and children, only to encounter a con-artist named Saul who is trying to become famous on the back of Jesus name and reputation; and (b) The DaVinci Code which was done much better by Robert Anton Wilson, who called it The Illuminatus Trilogy should also give one pause. These are modern conceits - that Jesus was married, that Mary Magdalene was his wife, etc., etc. Had any of these things even been remotely the case, there would be some ancient source, canonical or not (and the number of surviving non-canonical Gospels is large, and they make for very interesting reading; none of them mention Jesus having a wife and children) would have at least hinted at them. They do not. Even Josephus, the supposed "inventor" of Jesus' divinity, etc., mentions none of this in his chronicle (the anti-Semitic conceit that later Christian scholars added the parts about Jesus to Josephus' account of the Jewish Wars does not hold water).
These are important considerations. None of them, however, are as important as this. The tomb and ossuaries were discovered in 1980. While one can imagine all sorts of scenarios in which the information was withheld out of a sense of fear for the reaction of the faithful, we are entering, again, into DaVinci Code-conspiracy mongering, all arguments from silence. Could not a more plausible explanation be that they were not reported as the tomb of Jesus and his family because there was enough evidence showing that they belonged to someone else?
Again, I have not seen the documentary, and I certainly pass no judgements upon Cameron, his producers, or anyone else involved in the process. We need to remember that skepticism is a scientific virtue, even in matters of faith.
Is it possible? Of course it is! Indeed, such a find would be among the most important in archaeological history. It would force a fundamental re-thinking of Christianity and Islam which also holds to a less important, but still miraculous view of the resurrection of Jesus. It would force a fundamental reassessment of two-thousand years of western history. It would be earth-shattering beyond belief, as important as the discovery of intelligent life outside our solar system.
I have not seen the film, obviously, and I do not believe Cameron holds any animus towards Christianity. I refuse to believe there are sinister motives behind this project, and I think it would be interesting to view all the evidence - or at least the evidence Cameron presents in the film. If nothing else, if true, that stupid add that has run in The Nation for years claiming that Josephus of Alexandria invented the story of Jesus would end, because there would be proof from archaeology that he, indeed, existed and was not "fictional".
I think skepticism is in order, and not just because faith-based archaeologists are calling the whole thing in to question. For one thing, in the AP story by Marshall Thompson here (if the link doesn't work, let me know; you can find it at Yahoo!News, I am sure. I would, however, like to correct the link if possible, but it's one of those wierd long string of letters and numbers), I do not believe that history, archaeology, and theology should be used in the same breath as the Greek Orthodox archaeologist who defends The Church of the Holy Sepulchre as the site of Jesus burial. Quite simply - we don't know where Jesus was buried. This is like pointing to a stump and saying "This is where George Washington cut down that cherry tree."
Other comments, however, by other archaeologists, do raise important points. First, Jesus is a Hellenization of "Yeshua" (Joshua), a fairly common name. Mary, likewise, is the Greek form of "Miriam" (my daughter's name, BTW), also fairly common. The tomb containing the ossuaries was a fairly typical one for mildly prosperous Jerusalem-based merchants. So, not only didn't Jesus rise from the dead, he somehow moved his whole carpentry business (and his suddenly-discovered family, one assumes) from Nazareth to Jerusalem. He also was not a politico-religious figure at all, but apparently died naturally, and was laid to rest with his entire family. The Gospels are fiction, the concoction of strange minds bent on, what? Creating a religion out of whole-cloth?
The fact that this story dove-tails with (a) The Last Temptation of Christ, in which Jesus comes down from the cross, lives a long life with his wives and children, only to encounter a con-artist named Saul who is trying to become famous on the back of Jesus name and reputation; and (b) The DaVinci Code which was done much better by Robert Anton Wilson, who called it The Illuminatus Trilogy should also give one pause. These are modern conceits - that Jesus was married, that Mary Magdalene was his wife, etc., etc. Had any of these things even been remotely the case, there would be some ancient source, canonical or not (and the number of surviving non-canonical Gospels is large, and they make for very interesting reading; none of them mention Jesus having a wife and children) would have at least hinted at them. They do not. Even Josephus, the supposed "inventor" of Jesus' divinity, etc., mentions none of this in his chronicle (the anti-Semitic conceit that later Christian scholars added the parts about Jesus to Josephus' account of the Jewish Wars does not hold water).
These are important considerations. None of them, however, are as important as this. The tomb and ossuaries were discovered in 1980. While one can imagine all sorts of scenarios in which the information was withheld out of a sense of fear for the reaction of the faithful, we are entering, again, into DaVinci Code-conspiracy mongering, all arguments from silence. Could not a more plausible explanation be that they were not reported as the tomb of Jesus and his family because there was enough evidence showing that they belonged to someone else?
Again, I have not seen the documentary, and I certainly pass no judgements upon Cameron, his producers, or anyone else involved in the process. We need to remember that skepticism is a scientific virtue, even in matters of faith.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Ratfucking
Almost thirty-five years ago to the day, then-Sen. Edmund Muskie, Democratic Presidential candidate from the great state of Maine, stood in a snow-and-sleet storm and defended the honor and integrity of his wife. A letter had been published under her name in which the Senator had, among other things, referred to northern residents of his state as "Canucks" - an insulting term for Canadians familiar to any who have lived along the northern border (I grew up three hours from Toronto; closer than to NYC). Muskie's overreaction - he has ever since been captured with wetness on his cheeks; the ultra-conservative publisher of the Manchester, NH newspaper insisted he was weeping, and if he was, who could blame him - cost him dearly, as support slipped away among Democrats.
In the winter of 1971, Richard Nixon was in trouble. Any poll you read had his numbers in the mid-40's, and Sen. Muskie, the presumptive Democratic nominee, beat him by more than the margin of error time and time again. Muskie was not tainted by Vietnam, and dissociated himself from Humphrey and others in the Johnson Administration. Commenting again and again that the nation was still waiting on the "secret plan" for ending the war, Muskie had no idea, as 1971 turned to 1972, that Nixon would soon unleash the most vicious bombing campaign in world history against North Vietnam, and would also unleash the most vicious political smear campaign in history to derail the ordained candidacy of the only Democratic politician who could beat Nixon.
The author of what has come to be known as "the Canuck letter" was part of a team of political infiltrators and trouble-makers led by a cherub-faced young Republican from southern California named Donald Segretti. Segretti and his team dubbed their work "ratfucking". Mostly juvenile, adolescent nonsense - sexual innuendo, disrupting schedules, the political equivalent of "Do you have Prince Albert in a can? You better let him out!" - these pranks cost the Democrats money and time, distracting them just enough to keep them off balance.
The role of the press in this entire process was vital. Had the "Canuck" letter not been published, Muskie most likely would have beaten Nixon, and our entire history would have been very different. The press, however, then as now, was eager to be a vehicle for unsubstantiated charges, gossip-mongering, and the battle of personalities that is often presented as a substitute for real politics. Now, however, the place of ratfucking has become much more open, and much more sinister.
When Dick Cheney gives an interview and is not called on his lies, that is ratfucking. When the White House press corps refuses to put information in context, including calling lies what they are, that is ratfucking. When reporters whine when bloggers call them on their fatuousness, their laziness, and their plain errors of fact, that is ratfucking. When the Speaker of the House is embroiled in a phony "scandal" over a non-issue, that is ratfucking. We are living in a time when the insidious actions of our (previously) most criminal Administration are now part and parcel of the political process, aided and abetted by a press that sees itself as under siege, on the one hand from the most secretive Administration in American history, and on the other hand from "liberal bloggers" who keep insisting they do their job properly.
Even though we don't have pizza being delivered to Democratic Caucus meetings, or stolen letterhead being used to slander the private lives of politicians (why steal when you can make your own on the home computer?), we now have public figures allowed to present, without question, comment, or interruption, nonsense and lies to the American people. Worse, we have enablers in the press who insist that this is the way things should be. I would prefer to remind these lazy, stupid, ignorant folks that they are participants in the biggest ratfuck in American history. In other words, they are being taken for a ride, and loving every minute of it.
In the winter of 1971, Richard Nixon was in trouble. Any poll you read had his numbers in the mid-40's, and Sen. Muskie, the presumptive Democratic nominee, beat him by more than the margin of error time and time again. Muskie was not tainted by Vietnam, and dissociated himself from Humphrey and others in the Johnson Administration. Commenting again and again that the nation was still waiting on the "secret plan" for ending the war, Muskie had no idea, as 1971 turned to 1972, that Nixon would soon unleash the most vicious bombing campaign in world history against North Vietnam, and would also unleash the most vicious political smear campaign in history to derail the ordained candidacy of the only Democratic politician who could beat Nixon.
The author of what has come to be known as "the Canuck letter" was part of a team of political infiltrators and trouble-makers led by a cherub-faced young Republican from southern California named Donald Segretti. Segretti and his team dubbed their work "ratfucking". Mostly juvenile, adolescent nonsense - sexual innuendo, disrupting schedules, the political equivalent of "Do you have Prince Albert in a can? You better let him out!" - these pranks cost the Democrats money and time, distracting them just enough to keep them off balance.
The role of the press in this entire process was vital. Had the "Canuck" letter not been published, Muskie most likely would have beaten Nixon, and our entire history would have been very different. The press, however, then as now, was eager to be a vehicle for unsubstantiated charges, gossip-mongering, and the battle of personalities that is often presented as a substitute for real politics. Now, however, the place of ratfucking has become much more open, and much more sinister.
When Dick Cheney gives an interview and is not called on his lies, that is ratfucking. When the White House press corps refuses to put information in context, including calling lies what they are, that is ratfucking. When reporters whine when bloggers call them on their fatuousness, their laziness, and their plain errors of fact, that is ratfucking. When the Speaker of the House is embroiled in a phony "scandal" over a non-issue, that is ratfucking. We are living in a time when the insidious actions of our (previously) most criminal Administration are now part and parcel of the political process, aided and abetted by a press that sees itself as under siege, on the one hand from the most secretive Administration in American history, and on the other hand from "liberal bloggers" who keep insisting they do their job properly.
Even though we don't have pizza being delivered to Democratic Caucus meetings, or stolen letterhead being used to slander the private lives of politicians (why steal when you can make your own on the home computer?), we now have public figures allowed to present, without question, comment, or interruption, nonsense and lies to the American people. Worse, we have enablers in the press who insist that this is the way things should be. I would prefer to remind these lazy, stupid, ignorant folks that they are participants in the biggest ratfuck in American history. In other words, they are being taken for a ride, and loving every minute of it.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
A "Remarkable Achievement" Indeed!
Sometimes a person gets it right without even knowing about it. Such is certainly the case with Vice-President Cheney in recent comments in Australia, as reported here by the AP. Cheney calls the Iraq war and aftermath a "remarkable achievement". On the one hand, one is tempted to shout "WHAT?!?" and list all the reasons why such a description is indicative of a deranged mind. That would be easy and fun, but counter-productive. I would prefer to take those two words and apply them across the board to the entire Bush Presidency. If we consider our country in November, 2000, or even on January 19, 2001, and where we are now - my God, but that is a remarkable achievement!
-Signing statments exempting the Executive Branch from following laws passed by Congress, even as lamb-like a Congress as he has had until now.
-Abu-Ghraib
-Torture memo
-Removing the United States from the Kyoto Protocols, the International Criminal Court, the ABM Treaty, the anti-CBW Treaty . . .
-John Ashcroft as AG
-Alberto Gonzalez as AG
-Donald Rumsfeld
-Surpluses that vanished and turned into record deficits
-Going to war, and continuing that war, with inadequte personal and vehicular armor, lying about it, denying you lied about it, then denying you lied that you lied
-Tony Snow
-Stem-cell research de-funding
-Not allowing park service personnel to talk about the age of the Grand Canyon because of pressure from creationists
-the PATRIOT Act
-Guantanamo Bay prison
-3100 American deaths
-54,000 and counting Iraqi deaths
-threatening war, including nuclear war, with Iran
-threatening war, including nuclear war, with pretty much everyone except those who actually have nukes
-"Mission Accomplished"
As for the last one, all I can say is, indeed.
-Signing statments exempting the Executive Branch from following laws passed by Congress, even as lamb-like a Congress as he has had until now.
-Abu-Ghraib
-Torture memo
-Removing the United States from the Kyoto Protocols, the International Criminal Court, the ABM Treaty, the anti-CBW Treaty . . .
-John Ashcroft as AG
-Alberto Gonzalez as AG
-Donald Rumsfeld
-Surpluses that vanished and turned into record deficits
-Going to war, and continuing that war, with inadequte personal and vehicular armor, lying about it, denying you lied about it, then denying you lied that you lied
-Tony Snow
-Stem-cell research de-funding
-Not allowing park service personnel to talk about the age of the Grand Canyon because of pressure from creationists
-the PATRIOT Act
-Guantanamo Bay prison
-3100 American deaths
-54,000 and counting Iraqi deaths
-threatening war, including nuclear war, with Iran
-threatening war, including nuclear war, with pretty much everyone except those who actually have nukes
-"Mission Accomplished"
As for the last one, all I can say is, indeed.
Housekeeping Notes, and a Word to the Goat
I have added word verification to the comments section because I have decided to avoid having to go back and delete comment-spam, this is the quickest way around. I still let anyone and everyone comment - even my OLDest sister - and I only delete comments if they are spam.
I have linked to a blog by a conservative operating under the webonym "Goat". He is pretty right-wing, but what the heck, right? We're all in this together and all that . . .
I do want to make a couple observations. First, Goat has banned Parklife - and others - from his site, and reviews all comments before posting them. His rules for posting are strict, and if you ask me, counter-productive. The whole idea behind this is getting in to the fray, mixing it up with other people, sometimes even having people call you an asshole, or even worse names. It isn't always about substance, and substance isn't about avoiding dirty words (a lesson Joe Klein still has not internalized, although he did write "Jeeezus!" on his blog today; the first steps are always the hardest . . .). The most memorable conversations are the ones that include really heated arguments. As long as we respect one another in the morning, what's the harm in the occasional "Go fuck yourself"? If it's good enough for Dick Cheney, it's good enough for me.
On a related note (and this is directed at Goat), please do not disparage either the character or motives of those whom I consider my friends and web-mates, including Parklife. I am not sure what you mean by a "blogwar", but I am sure PL was just amused at your site, or perhaps even interested. That others might be less charitable, well it kind of goes with the territory. You need to lighten up a tad.
Finally, Goat, do not think me impressed by either erudition or knowledge. I have both in spades, and it counts for absolutely nothing. More than either, I prefer a willingness to be open, and a sense of humor. Even if you find you can't accept any of this, or find me presumptuous in offering advice and no longer visit, I shall continue the link. It is about communication, after all, and where would I be without all those right-wingers to keep me honest?
I have linked to a blog by a conservative operating under the webonym "Goat". He is pretty right-wing, but what the heck, right? We're all in this together and all that . . .
I do want to make a couple observations. First, Goat has banned Parklife - and others - from his site, and reviews all comments before posting them. His rules for posting are strict, and if you ask me, counter-productive. The whole idea behind this is getting in to the fray, mixing it up with other people, sometimes even having people call you an asshole, or even worse names. It isn't always about substance, and substance isn't about avoiding dirty words (a lesson Joe Klein still has not internalized, although he did write "Jeeezus!" on his blog today; the first steps are always the hardest . . .). The most memorable conversations are the ones that include really heated arguments. As long as we respect one another in the morning, what's the harm in the occasional "Go fuck yourself"? If it's good enough for Dick Cheney, it's good enough for me.
On a related note (and this is directed at Goat), please do not disparage either the character or motives of those whom I consider my friends and web-mates, including Parklife. I am not sure what you mean by a "blogwar", but I am sure PL was just amused at your site, or perhaps even interested. That others might be less charitable, well it kind of goes with the territory. You need to lighten up a tad.
Finally, Goat, do not think me impressed by either erudition or knowledge. I have both in spades, and it counts for absolutely nothing. More than either, I prefer a willingness to be open, and a sense of humor. Even if you find you can't accept any of this, or find me presumptuous in offering advice and no longer visit, I shall continue the link. It is about communication, after all, and where would I be without all those right-wingers to keep me honest?
Thursday, February 22, 2007
The One Where I Explain Why I Harp on Broder, Klein, etc.
I was a precoscious child. In kindergarten, we had an actual air raid drill (it was 1970; I never had one after kindergarten) and I was yelled at by my teacher because I asked the obvious question - the North Vietnamese couldn't bomb my little village in upstate NY, so what was all the fuss? My mother still has a paper I turned in to my teacher in second grade in which, practicing declarative sentences with multiple subjects, I wrote, "Mitchell and Stans are guilty." My teacher had scrawled several question marks after the sentence, and apparently (I have completely forgotten the incident) I filled her in that John Mitchell was the former Attorney General and Maurice Stans was the former finance chair of the Richard Nixon's Committee to Re-Elect the President, and I was airing my views on whether or not they had both lied under oath and committed various and sundry other crimes.
I was entranced by Watergate as a small child. It was like this wierd, wonderful movie, with all these characters of dubious morality, with the intrepid reporters on the trail, and the Congressional Cavalry riding in at the last minute after Nixon fired Archibald Cox (apparently, even then, a Democratic Congress couldn't care less if a President repeatedly violated the law; they just didn't like their prerogatives stepped all over).
While my mind has changed about many things, that initial impression still lingers - a certain romantic view of all things Washington. I still believe that Woodstein's reporting on the whole thing was among the best investigative journalism ever, and that neither Woodward, and certainly not Bernstein, have ever again done anything remotely as important or well-crafted since. They did provide a glimpse of what real journalism could be - and the threat it posed to those in power.
The past nine years have also provided a glimpse in to the ways journalism operates, and the differences between then and now could not be more stark (I start, arbitrarily it might seem, with the Lewinsky/impeachment business, but it should be noted that one could go all the way back to Whitewater). For me, the realization that something was not only rotten in journalism, but that journalists were almost completely devoid of any serious analytical skills or sense of responsibility was Sam Donaldson's now-infamous remark, the weekend after the Lewinsky scandal broke, the Clinton "would" resign within a week. I watched the original broadcast, and sat there absolutely dumb-founded. Even thinking about it all these years later, I am still dumb-founded.
Bob Somerby began The Daily Howler website in part because of the constant shoddy, often truly inept, work of journalists during the Clinton years. While I find his constant harping on Election 2000 a bit off-putting, I also understand his point. Had journalists acted like professional adults, instead of a clique of high school kids deciding who was in and out, who was cool, who a nerd, our world would be a very different place today, because Al Gore would have been elected President. This, not the September 11th attacks, changed everything.
So, my feelings about journalism and journalists stem from a remebered, child-like reverence for (in my child's-mind) heroes; and a mature view of journalists as vanguards of information. Because they are a true medium in the original sense of acting-between those who have information and those who desire information, their role and work should be subject to almost constant scrutiny, not just among themselves as a profession, but by non-journalists as well who should demand quality work meeting certain minimal standards that are, sadly, much higher than their recent work.
One of the complaints many on both the left and right have - and I think the fact that (a) the complaint spans the ideological spectrum; and (b) there is abundant evidence to support it as more than a complaint or accusation, but just the way things are - is there is too cozy a relationship between members of the press and Washington officials. This goes beyond this administration, although I believe that, because of the numerous failures and failings of this administration, the continued chuminess needs to stop. As evidenced by the recent Roundtable at the National Press Club with Tony Snow and members of the White House Press Corps, the defensiveness, and refusal to acknowledge outside accountability, along with an almost panting shared love between Snow and these reporters, shows us there is something horribly wrong. Ana Marie Cox at Swampland may call complaints like mine the prattlings of "conspiracy theorists", but they are not. The very idea that reporters and those whom they cover should both sit in their crying corner and bewail citizen commentary upon the work they do shows us something is desparately wrong with the entire situation.
Some of what is wrong extends beyond simple sycophancy. Some of those among our elite reporters and commentators are startlingly stupid, shallow people, who mistake access with insight, and print-inches with success and acceptability. As Somerby wrote today about Maureen Dowd, :How does warm flesh get this dumb?" Klein, Broder, and Thom Friedman are other examples of those held in high esteem, for reasons that totally escape many non-journalists. It isn't just their egregious pandering, their pose as neutral arbiters, and the philosopher-king view they hold of themselves; they are often wrong, their advice is sub-par, their insight rarely matched by any real wisdom.
On a larger scale, our journalists tend to share a pack mentatlity, and they try to shape narratives that usually have only a passing acquaintance with the truth. Somerby has done a magnificent job detailing, and destroying, the patchwork quilt of lies that developed around Al Gore in Campaign 2000, and even the entire fabric of the mainstream narrative about Bill and Hillary Clinton. Yet, we are seeing, again, that these same journalists, proven so egregiously wrong for the past nine years, and publicly proven wrong, simply will not surrender to reality. They allow envy, spite, and small-mindedness to color everything they write and say about candidates; they would rather construct a narrative than follow one. A good example, and one randomly picked from recent days concerns Hillary Clinton, and can be found here. There is nothing surprising, or even remotely interesting about this story - Sen. Clinton has been endorsed by some influential African-American state legislators in South Carolina. A reporter found out that these politicians also had relationships with a firm that Sen. Clinton did. This is a story?
Of course, the sub-text (and sub-texts are clear, but always dismissed by reporters) for this is that (a) Clinton is a strong-arming bitch, whose well-oiled machine is finessing support among those who might otherwise not support her; and (b) these nefarious relationships are part of an entire web of nefarious relationships that call into question Sen. Clinton's integrity, morality, and qualifications for the Presidency. A non-story about a perfectly acceptable and common occurrence - politicans sharing relationships with various PR firms and other groups - becomes part and parcel of a larger unstsated narrative in which Clinton's corruption is assumed beforehand; this is just one piece of a much larger puzzle.
This is the kind of nonsense that has to be called out and stopped. Part of the lesson Somerby and others are trying to pound in to our heads is that we need to be wary of these kinds of narratives. We can't stop lazy, stupid reporters from spreading rumors and false stories; we can debunk them, and demand accountability for such non-journalistic nonsense. We are getting better at it, but we need to keep up the work.
this is why I harp on Broder and Klein. Some, such as the folks at Sadly!No spend their time tearing apart the right-wing blogs. Others, such as Glenn Greenwald, take on both the mainstream press and right-wing blogs. Me - I am a small, part-time outfit, a Z-level blogger with a tiny readership, so I have to limit myself. I therefore limit myself to the nonsense spouted by those with the most influence. Of course, the question of who listens is important, but at leastmy view, like so many millions of others, is out there. Our country deserves better than David Broder and Joe Klein, just like we deserve better than George Bush and Dick Cheney.
I was entranced by Watergate as a small child. It was like this wierd, wonderful movie, with all these characters of dubious morality, with the intrepid reporters on the trail, and the Congressional Cavalry riding in at the last minute after Nixon fired Archibald Cox (apparently, even then, a Democratic Congress couldn't care less if a President repeatedly violated the law; they just didn't like their prerogatives stepped all over).
While my mind has changed about many things, that initial impression still lingers - a certain romantic view of all things Washington. I still believe that Woodstein's reporting on the whole thing was among the best investigative journalism ever, and that neither Woodward, and certainly not Bernstein, have ever again done anything remotely as important or well-crafted since. They did provide a glimpse of what real journalism could be - and the threat it posed to those in power.
The past nine years have also provided a glimpse in to the ways journalism operates, and the differences between then and now could not be more stark (I start, arbitrarily it might seem, with the Lewinsky/impeachment business, but it should be noted that one could go all the way back to Whitewater). For me, the realization that something was not only rotten in journalism, but that journalists were almost completely devoid of any serious analytical skills or sense of responsibility was Sam Donaldson's now-infamous remark, the weekend after the Lewinsky scandal broke, the Clinton "would" resign within a week. I watched the original broadcast, and sat there absolutely dumb-founded. Even thinking about it all these years later, I am still dumb-founded.
Bob Somerby began The Daily Howler website in part because of the constant shoddy, often truly inept, work of journalists during the Clinton years. While I find his constant harping on Election 2000 a bit off-putting, I also understand his point. Had journalists acted like professional adults, instead of a clique of high school kids deciding who was in and out, who was cool, who a nerd, our world would be a very different place today, because Al Gore would have been elected President. This, not the September 11th attacks, changed everything.
So, my feelings about journalism and journalists stem from a remebered, child-like reverence for (in my child's-mind) heroes; and a mature view of journalists as vanguards of information. Because they are a true medium in the original sense of acting-between those who have information and those who desire information, their role and work should be subject to almost constant scrutiny, not just among themselves as a profession, but by non-journalists as well who should demand quality work meeting certain minimal standards that are, sadly, much higher than their recent work.
One of the complaints many on both the left and right have - and I think the fact that (a) the complaint spans the ideological spectrum; and (b) there is abundant evidence to support it as more than a complaint or accusation, but just the way things are - is there is too cozy a relationship between members of the press and Washington officials. This goes beyond this administration, although I believe that, because of the numerous failures and failings of this administration, the continued chuminess needs to stop. As evidenced by the recent Roundtable at the National Press Club with Tony Snow and members of the White House Press Corps, the defensiveness, and refusal to acknowledge outside accountability, along with an almost panting shared love between Snow and these reporters, shows us there is something horribly wrong. Ana Marie Cox at Swampland may call complaints like mine the prattlings of "conspiracy theorists", but they are not. The very idea that reporters and those whom they cover should both sit in their crying corner and bewail citizen commentary upon the work they do shows us something is desparately wrong with the entire situation.
Some of what is wrong extends beyond simple sycophancy. Some of those among our elite reporters and commentators are startlingly stupid, shallow people, who mistake access with insight, and print-inches with success and acceptability. As Somerby wrote today about Maureen Dowd, :How does warm flesh get this dumb?" Klein, Broder, and Thom Friedman are other examples of those held in high esteem, for reasons that totally escape many non-journalists. It isn't just their egregious pandering, their pose as neutral arbiters, and the philosopher-king view they hold of themselves; they are often wrong, their advice is sub-par, their insight rarely matched by any real wisdom.
On a larger scale, our journalists tend to share a pack mentatlity, and they try to shape narratives that usually have only a passing acquaintance with the truth. Somerby has done a magnificent job detailing, and destroying, the patchwork quilt of lies that developed around Al Gore in Campaign 2000, and even the entire fabric of the mainstream narrative about Bill and Hillary Clinton. Yet, we are seeing, again, that these same journalists, proven so egregiously wrong for the past nine years, and publicly proven wrong, simply will not surrender to reality. They allow envy, spite, and small-mindedness to color everything they write and say about candidates; they would rather construct a narrative than follow one. A good example, and one randomly picked from recent days concerns Hillary Clinton, and can be found here. There is nothing surprising, or even remotely interesting about this story - Sen. Clinton has been endorsed by some influential African-American state legislators in South Carolina. A reporter found out that these politicians also had relationships with a firm that Sen. Clinton did. This is a story?
Of course, the sub-text (and sub-texts are clear, but always dismissed by reporters) for this is that (a) Clinton is a strong-arming bitch, whose well-oiled machine is finessing support among those who might otherwise not support her; and (b) these nefarious relationships are part of an entire web of nefarious relationships that call into question Sen. Clinton's integrity, morality, and qualifications for the Presidency. A non-story about a perfectly acceptable and common occurrence - politicans sharing relationships with various PR firms and other groups - becomes part and parcel of a larger unstsated narrative in which Clinton's corruption is assumed beforehand; this is just one piece of a much larger puzzle.
This is the kind of nonsense that has to be called out and stopped. Part of the lesson Somerby and others are trying to pound in to our heads is that we need to be wary of these kinds of narratives. We can't stop lazy, stupid reporters from spreading rumors and false stories; we can debunk them, and demand accountability for such non-journalistic nonsense. We are getting better at it, but we need to keep up the work.
this is why I harp on Broder and Klein. Some, such as the folks at Sadly!No spend their time tearing apart the right-wing blogs. Others, such as Glenn Greenwald, take on both the mainstream press and right-wing blogs. Me - I am a small, part-time outfit, a Z-level blogger with a tiny readership, so I have to limit myself. I therefore limit myself to the nonsense spouted by those with the most influence. Of course, the question of who listens is important, but at leastmy view, like so many millions of others, is out there. Our country deserves better than David Broder and Joe Klein, just like we deserve better than George Bush and Dick Cheney.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Ash Wednesday
It seems eons ago that the mainline Protestant churches rediscovered the value of certain liturgical rites. I remember when Ash Wednesday services began to happen again in United Methodist Churches I attended, and much of the rhetoric (including from me) was that it was a Christian version of the Jewish Feast of Atonement, known as Yom Kippur. It is not that at all. Yom Kippur is a day of solemn awareness of one's failings before the God of the covenant. Ash Wednesday is the beginning of Lent, in which Christians discipline themselves, preparing for the strange and wonderful event we call Easter. In order to begin the Lenten disciplines - which popularly involve "giving something up" but involve much more than that - Ash Wednesday calls us to remember something far more significant than our sinfulness: we are called to remember that we are mortal, and as mortals, we shall die.
The word "death" in this context is freighted with an ontological and theological significance that goes far beyond the end of our bodily life. Death here refers to the permanent separation from God. As creatures created from dust, to dust, represented in the ashes placed upon our forheads (ashes were chosen because of the old belief that cremated bodies could not be reconstituted for the final resurrection from the dead, again signifying that total separation from God our Creator), we shall return. It is the recognition of the fallen state in which all creation exists, an endless cycle of birth, death, rot, and decay. While creation is good, and God seeks to redeem all life (even mosquitoes, according to theologian Jurgen Moltmann), as it stand now, we live under the judgement signified by ashes - we are separated from God and there is nothing we in our own power can do to restore that relationship.
The Lenten journey begins tomorrow, as we seek to embrace our deaths not as the end of a journey, but as the beginning of new life, lived here on earth, for others, as we are called to do by God through Jesus Christ. This takes work. It takes prayer. It takes releasing any notions we have that our agendas, our wishes, our desires, our very beings, have any worth other than the worth granted through the grace of Jesus Christ. We are to live and love and serve as if we were already dead - not heeding our own desires, but seeking first, and always, the Kingdom of God.
At our service this evening, as we prayed the prayer of Invitation to Lenten Discipline, my wife had us actually bow, as if we were bowing before the very throne of God. We announced the reality of our sin, and our desire to open our hearts - to cleanse ourselves of all the dark, dank, horrid things, secret and not-so-secret, that plague us, drag us down to the depths. For me, this was a significant moment; my eyes could not lift up, because I felt I was right there, before God - how could I do that and live? What could I say, what could I offer, what could I do? The answer, of course, is the disciplined response of Lent.
As we move from this day to the passion, death, adn resurrection of Jesus, I leave you with these words, from the closing hymn:
The word "death" in this context is freighted with an ontological and theological significance that goes far beyond the end of our bodily life. Death here refers to the permanent separation from God. As creatures created from dust, to dust, represented in the ashes placed upon our forheads (ashes were chosen because of the old belief that cremated bodies could not be reconstituted for the final resurrection from the dead, again signifying that total separation from God our Creator), we shall return. It is the recognition of the fallen state in which all creation exists, an endless cycle of birth, death, rot, and decay. While creation is good, and God seeks to redeem all life (even mosquitoes, according to theologian Jurgen Moltmann), as it stand now, we live under the judgement signified by ashes - we are separated from God and there is nothing we in our own power can do to restore that relationship.
The Lenten journey begins tomorrow, as we seek to embrace our deaths not as the end of a journey, but as the beginning of new life, lived here on earth, for others, as we are called to do by God through Jesus Christ. This takes work. It takes prayer. It takes releasing any notions we have that our agendas, our wishes, our desires, our very beings, have any worth other than the worth granted through the grace of Jesus Christ. We are to live and love and serve as if we were already dead - not heeding our own desires, but seeking first, and always, the Kingdom of God.
At our service this evening, as we prayed the prayer of Invitation to Lenten Discipline, my wife had us actually bow, as if we were bowing before the very throne of God. We announced the reality of our sin, and our desire to open our hearts - to cleanse ourselves of all the dark, dank, horrid things, secret and not-so-secret, that plague us, drag us down to the depths. For me, this was a significant moment; my eyes could not lift up, because I felt I was right there, before God - how could I do that and live? What could I say, what could I offer, what could I do? The answer, of course, is the disciplined response of Lent.
As we move from this day to the passion, death, adn resurrection of Jesus, I leave you with these words, from the closing hymn:
I surrender all
I surrender all
All to thee my blessed Savior
I surrender all
Apparently I'm Not Alone in Not Liking Jim Wallis (Updated)
My previous post on Joe Klein was going to be longer, but I followed a link from this post at Hullabaloo and found this at Talk To Action, entitled "The Seduction of Unreason: Jim Wallis vs. the Enlightenment" by Bruce Wilson. Now, I am no booster of the Enlightenment; nor am I particularly fond of the counter-enlightenment (and I think Wilson is wrong, historically, both on the dates of the Enlightenment, and the backlash against it; Isaiah Berlin is much better). I consider myself an early post-Enlightenment thinker, looking for a different approach that is amenable to our changing times. The Enlightenment is pretty much exhausted as a well from which to draw both good and evil. I offer this merely as a footnote, commentary as it were, to position myself in a larger context. On point, allow me to quote the first paragraph from Wilson's post:
Wilson continues:
Talk To Action is a liberal Christian blog.
Another link provided by Digby was to this piece by Frederick Clarkson entitled "Jim Wallis gets it wrong about the Religious Right". Again, I quibble a tad with some of Clarkson's points - I agree with Wallis that we are watching the Christian Right, not so much in its death throes as in its decline in power and influence. I am not suggesting they are gone yet, or that they are not still a powerful force, especially as we have a President who has, to say the least, odd views on matters Christian. I am also not saying the Christian right will disappear. It never has, nor will it ever (sorry, Democracy Lover). I am suggesting that the oft-touted, yet-to-happen decline of the political power of right-wing Christian demagogues is happening before our eyes; we need to watch and listen carefully, but it is there. The last nail in the coffin will be the final removal of Bush from the Presidency and the end of Republican hegemony in American politics.
Again, having announced these caveats, I would urge you to read both articles in full, and consider them carefully. I, too, agree with Wallis on various issues, although not on abortion. I like the fact that he has been a steadfast defender of the social dimension of the Gospel, and put that to work in his ministry. Now, though, other aspects, less . . . um . . . attractive(?) are coming out, and I think it high time to move beyond Wallis.
As a side note to all this, I think liberal and progressive Christians need to stop their whining about secular progressives. The seat at the table is ours as Americans, but all discussions around tables can become animated; let the non-Christians speak, and don't get all defensive. Our job here isn't to make converts, it's to work with others (not lead, just work with) to make the country better. We don't have a monopoly on truth or virtue, and we do have some 'splainin' to do to those who might want to ask us some questions. Just because Atrios thinks a lot of Christian rhetoric is gibberish doesn't mean he doesn't like you. He just means that a lot of Christian rhetoric is, to him, gibberish. Lighten up.
UPDATE: This post by tristero at Hullabaloo gets it all in a nutshell. Christians of all stripes are part of the American system, and are encouraged to participate. Please, however, respect the fact that others have different views, and don't be pushy, insistent, arrogant or rude (those last three words are added as a reference to some writing somwhere . . . Oh yeah! 1 Corinthians 13, where St. Paul is describing the nature of Christian love-in-action). That is part of my problem with the emergence of, and recent scribblings by, Jim Wallis. He is arrogant, rude, insisting on his own way. He seeks not to serve but to be served. He seeks not tun understand but to be understood. He seeks not the Kingdom of God, but the assertion of Wallisism in America.
Christian humility should call us to take our umps like the rest of the imperfect, sinful mortals we find around us, not relish our new-found influence with certain members of the political and media elite. Before we demand what others do as conditions for participation, listen to what they have to say to us - and understand. And agree. And remain silent until it is time to speak. Not as some strategy for dominance-through-submission, but as an honest reflection of our own recognition of the limited nature of our understanding, our heartfelt sympathy with those who find much of Christianity either nonsensical or, indeed, abhorrent, and in accordance with the command to be the servant of all.
More than anything else, this is my complaint about Wallis. So eager to be a public figure, he forgets that we have real work to do, and a real way of going about doing that work. There are others out there who understand that, and are doing it. I think we turn our eyes upon them.
During the summer or [sic] 2005, at the beach, I read "God's Politics" and compiled a list of quotes, from the book, which I thought were noteable. I treated the quotes as logical assertions and strung them together as a narrative. The result was hard to distinguish from the rhetoric of James Dobson or arguments of the Family Research Council and, indeed, comprised what may be the central narrative animating the modern American religious right political movement: that American society and the American moral fabric have been unravelling for decades and unnamed "secularists" . . . are to blame.(emphasis added)
Wilson continues:
Wallis' claims on the alleged breakdown of American society mirror identical arguments, advanced by leaders of the Christian right . . .
--
Claims made by Jim Wallis and the American Christian right have little to do with facts, logic, reason, analysis, science, or methodical attempts to get a bearing on societal trends and hot to set public policy to push trends in desired directions.
Talk To Action is a liberal Christian blog.
Another link provided by Digby was to this piece by Frederick Clarkson entitled "Jim Wallis gets it wrong about the Religious Right". Again, I quibble a tad with some of Clarkson's points - I agree with Wallis that we are watching the Christian Right, not so much in its death throes as in its decline in power and influence. I am not suggesting they are gone yet, or that they are not still a powerful force, especially as we have a President who has, to say the least, odd views on matters Christian. I am also not saying the Christian right will disappear. It never has, nor will it ever (sorry, Democracy Lover). I am suggesting that the oft-touted, yet-to-happen decline of the political power of right-wing Christian demagogues is happening before our eyes; we need to watch and listen carefully, but it is there. The last nail in the coffin will be the final removal of Bush from the Presidency and the end of Republican hegemony in American politics.
Again, having announced these caveats, I would urge you to read both articles in full, and consider them carefully. I, too, agree with Wallis on various issues, although not on abortion. I like the fact that he has been a steadfast defender of the social dimension of the Gospel, and put that to work in his ministry. Now, though, other aspects, less . . . um . . . attractive(?) are coming out, and I think it high time to move beyond Wallis.
As a side note to all this, I think liberal and progressive Christians need to stop their whining about secular progressives. The seat at the table is ours as Americans, but all discussions around tables can become animated; let the non-Christians speak, and don't get all defensive. Our job here isn't to make converts, it's to work with others (not lead, just work with) to make the country better. We don't have a monopoly on truth or virtue, and we do have some 'splainin' to do to those who might want to ask us some questions. Just because Atrios thinks a lot of Christian rhetoric is gibberish doesn't mean he doesn't like you. He just means that a lot of Christian rhetoric is, to him, gibberish. Lighten up.
UPDATE: This post by tristero at Hullabaloo gets it all in a nutshell. Christians of all stripes are part of the American system, and are encouraged to participate. Please, however, respect the fact that others have different views, and don't be pushy, insistent, arrogant or rude (those last three words are added as a reference to some writing somwhere . . . Oh yeah! 1 Corinthians 13, where St. Paul is describing the nature of Christian love-in-action). That is part of my problem with the emergence of, and recent scribblings by, Jim Wallis. He is arrogant, rude, insisting on his own way. He seeks not to serve but to be served. He seeks not tun understand but to be understood. He seeks not the Kingdom of God, but the assertion of Wallisism in America.
Christian humility should call us to take our umps like the rest of the imperfect, sinful mortals we find around us, not relish our new-found influence with certain members of the political and media elite. Before we demand what others do as conditions for participation, listen to what they have to say to us - and understand. And agree. And remain silent until it is time to speak. Not as some strategy for dominance-through-submission, but as an honest reflection of our own recognition of the limited nature of our understanding, our heartfelt sympathy with those who find much of Christianity either nonsensical or, indeed, abhorrent, and in accordance with the command to be the servant of all.
More than anything else, this is my complaint about Wallis. So eager to be a public figure, he forgets that we have real work to do, and a real way of going about doing that work. There are others out there who understand that, and are doing it. I think we turn our eyes upon them.
Short Take
Joe Klein neither likes nor understands democracy. Hint: It's about giving voters real choices as to who represents them. It's about real people making decisions for themselves, including complaining about elitist pundits who keep trying to tell them what to do.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Ignoring Jim Wallis
That would be my advice to Duncan Black if he knew I existed. Over at Eschaton, Black writes this post, in which he is irked by something Wallis has written. I have never been a fan of Wallis, as I explain here and here. I find Wallis to be little more than a self-promoting media-whore, and I find the following he has among liberal and progressive Christians troubling. Perhaps it is because, in the wilderness years, he was the only liberal Christian voice one heard, even if only softly in the distance. The problem, however, is that Wallis began to see himself as some sort of "leader", and the media began to tout him as one. Wallis' comments that Black quotes are evidence enough that he is behind the curve, and seeking to reserve a place of privilege in public discourse not only for religious liberals generally, but for himself specifically. Rather than defend himself, he does not want his sincerity or liberal bona fides questioned.
Wallis is a media creation, whose "leadership" has produced no lasting movement, or even temporary results. Wanting to paint himself as some prophetic voice, he is more like the right-wing preachers he excoriates than a true prophet. I find him unctuous, and I do not countenance what he says as anything worth heeding, because he is a mirror image of Falwell and Robertson, and personifies much of what I detest about the religious dimension of our social life.
So, I hope Black does not take too much to heart what Wallis has to say. His position is eminently more reasonable, and in keeping with American traditions, than anything Wallis has ever offered as a substitute.
Wallis is a media creation, whose "leadership" has produced no lasting movement, or even temporary results. Wanting to paint himself as some prophetic voice, he is more like the right-wing preachers he excoriates than a true prophet. I find him unctuous, and I do not countenance what he says as anything worth heeding, because he is a mirror image of Falwell and Robertson, and personifies much of what I detest about the religious dimension of our social life.
So, I hope Black does not take too much to heart what Wallis has to say. His position is eminently more reasonable, and in keeping with American traditions, than anything Wallis has ever offered as a substitute.
Bush's New Press Secretary
As I noted here, David Broder's column last week in which he offered the prediction of a political come-back for the Bush Administration is among the silliest, sycophantic pieces of non-journalism I have read in quite a while. In an on-line chat, Broder insisted he is not a favorite of the current White House, and challenged anyone to offer proof that he might be.
The Washington Post's resident blogger, Dan Froomkin, does so here (h/t Glenn Greenwald):
You know who a person is by who that person's friends are. 'Nuff said.
The Washington Post's resident blogger, Dan Froomkin, does so here (h/t Glenn Greenwald):
The White House press office was so delighted with Broder's column that it sent it out to the entire White House press corps this morning at 6:44 a.m. under the heading: "In Case You Missed It."
You know who a person is by who that person's friends are. 'Nuff said.
Stuck in the '90's
Over at TPM Cafe is this post that surprised me if for no other reason than the fact that there are still people out there talking about the Clinton-Blair "Third Way".* One would have thought that the spectacular failures of neo-liberalism - in reforming the Russian and Eastern-European economies; in creating a global trade regime that was just, equitable, and recognized both environmental concerns and substantively protected workers' rights; to create serious, lasting fiscal and monetary policies that recognized the necessity for discipline and moderation; not so much "ending welfare as we know it" as "tossing people off the rolls and not caring what happens to them" - would have silenced those who still might want to push such an agenda. Of course, as the last six years have proven over and over again, our elites do not let little things like abject failure, political, public policy, and managerial incompetence, and moral vacuousness get in the way of a really good slogan, and apparently the Third Wayers are, like this as in much else, more like Republicans than Democrats.
The truth is, there really was no "Third Way"; it was a rhetorical device used by Blair, but adopted by Clinton to cover a whole host of policy initiatives that were not necessarily hard-core conservative but certainly not liberal in the traditional sense of the term.
The one area where I thought at one time there might be a success was on reigning in fiscal indiscipline and monetary tight-fistedness. The 1990's economic boom showed what can happen when sound tax, fiscal, and monetary policies combine to stoke the engines of the economy. If the Clinton years showed us nothing else, they showed us that anti-tax ideology is simply an illusion; even the slightly progressive readjustments made during Clinton's first term - raising the marginal rates on top earners, increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit for the working poor, and increasing incentives for middle-income wage-earners to save and invest - combined with a stern discipline on spending and a Federal Reserve that saw its role as staying out of the way of economic expansion - could create an economic juggernaut. Not only have these gains been lost, we are in much worse shape than we were six years ago, and the attempt to make the Bush tax policies permanent would be a horrific blow to any kind of serious economic recovery.
Having said all that, the author's point that such talk might have served us well 15 years ago but is irrelevant now is a good one. Part of the irrelevancy comes from simple historical comparisons - which Administration has served the United States better, Republican or Democratic? Which Administration pursued substantive policies in the interest of the country as a whole, reflected in the success of the country as a whole? Which Administration and its policies is supported by a larger percentage of the American people?
The Third Way leads down a dead-end road, and we are well rid of it. Right-wing Democrats who still quake in their boots over anything that might possibly be construed as "liberal" or (God forbid!) "progressive", and who insist that the left must be tamed if Democrats are to win elections again (this includes non-partisan pundit/hacks like Joe Klein) are just plain wrong, and should not be listened to at any cost. The times they are a-changing, and we need to move more of the Democratic Party with us.
*Apparently Bush's Poodle in Downing Street has discovered a Fourth Way, and its called "Do Whatever the American President Does, No Matter Who That Is". Thankfully for us, Blair's toadying is not appreciated by Britons. It is one thing to recognize that one is not a world power any more and defer to one's more powerful allies. It is another to take tht to the extreme of aping that more powerful allies' more stupid and destructive policies.
The truth is, there really was no "Third Way"; it was a rhetorical device used by Blair, but adopted by Clinton to cover a whole host of policy initiatives that were not necessarily hard-core conservative but certainly not liberal in the traditional sense of the term.
The one area where I thought at one time there might be a success was on reigning in fiscal indiscipline and monetary tight-fistedness. The 1990's economic boom showed what can happen when sound tax, fiscal, and monetary policies combine to stoke the engines of the economy. If the Clinton years showed us nothing else, they showed us that anti-tax ideology is simply an illusion; even the slightly progressive readjustments made during Clinton's first term - raising the marginal rates on top earners, increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit for the working poor, and increasing incentives for middle-income wage-earners to save and invest - combined with a stern discipline on spending and a Federal Reserve that saw its role as staying out of the way of economic expansion - could create an economic juggernaut. Not only have these gains been lost, we are in much worse shape than we were six years ago, and the attempt to make the Bush tax policies permanent would be a horrific blow to any kind of serious economic recovery.
Having said all that, the author's point that such talk might have served us well 15 years ago but is irrelevant now is a good one. Part of the irrelevancy comes from simple historical comparisons - which Administration has served the United States better, Republican or Democratic? Which Administration pursued substantive policies in the interest of the country as a whole, reflected in the success of the country as a whole? Which Administration and its policies is supported by a larger percentage of the American people?
The Third Way leads down a dead-end road, and we are well rid of it. Right-wing Democrats who still quake in their boots over anything that might possibly be construed as "liberal" or (God forbid!) "progressive", and who insist that the left must be tamed if Democrats are to win elections again (this includes non-partisan pundit/hacks like Joe Klein) are just plain wrong, and should not be listened to at any cost. The times they are a-changing, and we need to move more of the Democratic Party with us.
*Apparently Bush's Poodle in Downing Street has discovered a Fourth Way, and its called "Do Whatever the American President Does, No Matter Who That Is". Thankfully for us, Blair's toadying is not appreciated by Britons. It is one thing to recognize that one is not a world power any more and defer to one's more powerful allies. It is another to take tht to the extreme of aping that more powerful allies' more stupid and destructive policies.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Discussing Religion in the Public Sphere - The Romney Candidacy and a Recent Poll
Over here at Sadly!No they reproduce a poll that shows that less than a majority of people would vote for an atheist for President, even if that person were otherwise qualified to hold the office. For the past week, Duncan Black at Eschaton has been discussing religion (I commented on it last week) and, as Mitt Romney's candidacy begins to escalate the anti-Mormonism latent within Protestantism, continues to offer thoughts, here and here that continue his rather open, serious, and broad-minded approach to the subject. I suppose I have been avoiding the whole thing, but when I saw the poll at Sadly!No, and as Romney's candidacy continues, I think it important for me to make some things clear, even as my positions change and I may seem to contradict myself.
First, the poll is troubling but unsurprising. Whether we like it or not, we live in a religion-besotted nation, although I would qualify that statement a great deal. I believe that much of our public discourse is religion-besotted, without ever being very clear as to what, exactly, that might mean, the historical roots of the religious dimension often dragged (sometimes kicking and screaming) into public debates, and is too often mishandled and even exploited. Historically, we have actually elected folks who, by today's standards, would be unelectable due to their religious views and practice. Two come to mind: (1) Abe Lincoln, while very often using God in his speeches, was unconventionally religious, taken with the occult, and refused to identify with any organized religion; (2) William Howard Taft (OK, not our greatest President, but certainly our largest, once getting himself stuck in the First Tub because of his enormous girth) was an active member of the large Unitarian Universalist congregation now located on Sixteenth St., NW, about a mile or so north of the White House, although a hundred years ago it was, I believe, up on Georgia Ave. somewhere. We have elected rapists (Thomas Jefferson), serial adulterers (the list begins with Jefferson and ends with Clinton, and includes FDR, Einsenhower, JFK, Warren Harding, and Ronald Reagan), possibly a gay man (James Buchanan was our only bachelor President and had a long-term friendship with another man that followed him after he left the Executive Mansion), and even one or two genocidal Presidents (Andrew Jackson and the Cherokee's "Trail of Tears"; the hounding of the Plains and Southwestern Indians, including the Sioux, the Nez Perce, the Arapaho, the Apache, and even the peaceful Hopi, the only native groups never to be in a formal or informal state of war with the United States government).
We have also had Presidents whose religious chatter was just that; Ronald Reagan is the most recent example, but I might also include George H. W. Bush who refused to receive the Washington-area Bishop of the Epicopal Church in the days before the Gulf War, because the Episcopal Bishop and Church were opposed to the war, and the Bishop wanted to hand-deliver the official statement of the church to the President. Holed up in the White House giving spiritual aid and comfort in those same days was . . . Billy Graham (who actually opposed the war). Having a Mormon as President would be no big deal, and even his candidacy is a good thing as it exposes some of the real vile hatreds many evangelical Protestants feel towards those who hold to a Third Testament.
As a side note, it isn't just Mormons who irk right-leaning Christians; Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, and even Catholics are considered by many right-wingers to be "cults". It is one thing to believe, as I do, that some or even most of the things folks who profess these faiths are either silly, ignorant, or just plain false. It is another thing altogether to call people cult-members, or to question the faithfulness of those who profess these beliefs. Although I agree with Black that there is a thin line between questioning these beliefs and out-and-out bigotry, I also agree that questioning these beliefs, especially when they are trotted out as part and parcel of our public discourse and a necessary part of understanding the candidate as a candidate, is not bigotry at all, but quite necessary and reasonable.
I also agree with something else Black wrote in the second post linked above:
He is reminding us here of Eisnehower's silly saying that it doesn't matter what one believes, as long as one believes in something. Black is arguing that beliefs do matter, and that once they become part of our public debate, we need to have a real debate about them. That is why JFK talked about his Catholicism; that is why John Kerry talked about his. That is why Jimmy Carter talked about his evangelical Baptist beliefs. That is why George W. Bush talks about his spiritual renewal after an early adulthood spent in (realtively mild, we assume) debauchery. There is nothing wrong with these discussions, as long as we remember that, once they enter our public realm, they become fodder for questioning, for debate, and even for ridicule. Romney's statement that "we need a person of faith" as President is an opinion (although, if the poll cited above is any indication, it is also a fact), and should become the starting point for a real debate over the role of religion in American public life. We have been needing this debate for a long time, and maybe, just maybe, we are seeing the stirrings of one now. Let us keep the discussion going.
First, the poll is troubling but unsurprising. Whether we like it or not, we live in a religion-besotted nation, although I would qualify that statement a great deal. I believe that much of our public discourse is religion-besotted, without ever being very clear as to what, exactly, that might mean, the historical roots of the religious dimension often dragged (sometimes kicking and screaming) into public debates, and is too often mishandled and even exploited. Historically, we have actually elected folks who, by today's standards, would be unelectable due to their religious views and practice. Two come to mind: (1) Abe Lincoln, while very often using God in his speeches, was unconventionally religious, taken with the occult, and refused to identify with any organized religion; (2) William Howard Taft (OK, not our greatest President, but certainly our largest, once getting himself stuck in the First Tub because of his enormous girth) was an active member of the large Unitarian Universalist congregation now located on Sixteenth St., NW, about a mile or so north of the White House, although a hundred years ago it was, I believe, up on Georgia Ave. somewhere. We have elected rapists (Thomas Jefferson), serial adulterers (the list begins with Jefferson and ends with Clinton, and includes FDR, Einsenhower, JFK, Warren Harding, and Ronald Reagan), possibly a gay man (James Buchanan was our only bachelor President and had a long-term friendship with another man that followed him after he left the Executive Mansion), and even one or two genocidal Presidents (Andrew Jackson and the Cherokee's "Trail of Tears"; the hounding of the Plains and Southwestern Indians, including the Sioux, the Nez Perce, the Arapaho, the Apache, and even the peaceful Hopi, the only native groups never to be in a formal or informal state of war with the United States government).
We have also had Presidents whose religious chatter was just that; Ronald Reagan is the most recent example, but I might also include George H. W. Bush who refused to receive the Washington-area Bishop of the Epicopal Church in the days before the Gulf War, because the Episcopal Bishop and Church were opposed to the war, and the Bishop wanted to hand-deliver the official statement of the church to the President. Holed up in the White House giving spiritual aid and comfort in those same days was . . . Billy Graham (who actually opposed the war). Having a Mormon as President would be no big deal, and even his candidacy is a good thing as it exposes some of the real vile hatreds many evangelical Protestants feel towards those who hold to a Third Testament.
As a side note, it isn't just Mormons who irk right-leaning Christians; Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, and even Catholics are considered by many right-wingers to be "cults". It is one thing to believe, as I do, that some or even most of the things folks who profess these faiths are either silly, ignorant, or just plain false. It is another thing altogether to call people cult-members, or to question the faithfulness of those who profess these beliefs. Although I agree with Black that there is a thin line between questioning these beliefs and out-and-out bigotry, I also agree that questioning these beliefs, especially when they are trotted out as part and parcel of our public discourse and a necessary part of understanding the candidate as a candidate, is not bigotry at all, but quite necessary and reasonable.
I also agree with something else Black wrote in the second post linked above:
[W]hat you believe is unimportant as long as you have faith in something, and [such a position has] reduced any public discussion of the genuine differences that exist [between and among religions].
He is reminding us here of Eisnehower's silly saying that it doesn't matter what one believes, as long as one believes in something. Black is arguing that beliefs do matter, and that once they become part of our public debate, we need to have a real debate about them. That is why JFK talked about his Catholicism; that is why John Kerry talked about his. That is why Jimmy Carter talked about his evangelical Baptist beliefs. That is why George W. Bush talks about his spiritual renewal after an early adulthood spent in (realtively mild, we assume) debauchery. There is nothing wrong with these discussions, as long as we remember that, once they enter our public realm, they become fodder for questioning, for debate, and even for ridicule. Romney's statement that "we need a person of faith" as President is an opinion (although, if the poll cited above is any indication, it is also a fact), and should become the starting point for a real debate over the role of religion in American public life. We have been needing this debate for a long time, and maybe, just maybe, we are seeing the stirrings of one now. Let us keep the discussion going.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
On Immovable Earth and Christian Fundamentalism
My post yesterday on this topic was more of a venting process than anything else. A day has passed, and I have been able to put some distance between my initial emotional response and the story itself, and consider it against a broader background. I have had help from blog roll member Erudite Redneck, who writes in the comments section in response to my own mournful wail over the stupidity:
Not only is he correct, it brings up a point I had not really considered fully, but needs to be addressed. This kind of thinking, if the word can be used in this context, has always been around, and not just in Christian fundie circles. I once visited the Flat Earth Society's website, and these are earnest folks, and not at all concerned with Biblical inerrancy and Jewish plots. For now, though, our concern is with the fundy wing of this particular idiocy.
It has been a quarter-century since the Christian Right entered the political world in a big way; I remember Time, Newsweek, and US News and World Report doing long pieces back in the mid-80's on the distinction, gradations, and varied positions on a variety of social issues amongst those usually lumped together as parts of the Christian right. The whole "creation science" thing was just then beginning to take hold, and Tim LaHaye's Institute for Creation Research figured prominently in at least one of the articles I vaguely recall.
Creationism is about more than rejecting Darwinism, although that is utmost. It is, as ER points out, rejecting five hundred years worth of looking at the world through eyes turned away from Christian scripture, or at least not allowing Scripture to overturn experience. So, now, as the right begins its retreat - and I believe it is doing just that, although that prediction has been made before - we are beginning to see where the logic of such nonsense as biblical inerrancy leads us. It is easy to make fun of people who believe this crap; it is also easy to reduce it psychological categories - arrested development, fear of modernity, even unfocussed Oedipal rage - but the simple fact is these people are, in the last analysis, nuts.
It would be nice if I could try to account for this nonsense in some other away. I do not doubt the sincerity of their beliefs, any more than I doubt the sincerity of Berkowitz' claim that his neighbor's dog was possessed by a demon who told him to kill women. I believe he believes the story; I just think he is deranged to believe it. In the same way, I believe people who hold that the earth is the center of the Universe, that Copernicus was wrong, etc., etc., truly believe these things. I just believe they are deranged to believe it. There is no reason to argue with them, to discuss the issue with them, to try to decipher meaning, purpose, or anything else that might lie behind these beliefs. They are just plain nuts.
These are the folks who bravely go where few fundamentalists dare; they are consistent on issues of Biblical inerrancy. By being so, they show how intellectually vacuous, and psychologically damaging, such a view is. This is the voice of true fundamentalism. They cannot hide behind rhetoric or dissimulation any longer.
Most of the fundies who claim to be biblical inerrantists aren't even close, so they should quit pretending, and stop trying to close the doors of fellowship to those of us who definitely are not. The Fixed Earth people are real biblical inerrantists.
Not only is he correct, it brings up a point I had not really considered fully, but needs to be addressed. This kind of thinking, if the word can be used in this context, has always been around, and not just in Christian fundie circles. I once visited the Flat Earth Society's website, and these are earnest folks, and not at all concerned with Biblical inerrancy and Jewish plots. For now, though, our concern is with the fundy wing of this particular idiocy.
It has been a quarter-century since the Christian Right entered the political world in a big way; I remember Time, Newsweek, and US News and World Report doing long pieces back in the mid-80's on the distinction, gradations, and varied positions on a variety of social issues amongst those usually lumped together as parts of the Christian right. The whole "creation science" thing was just then beginning to take hold, and Tim LaHaye's Institute for Creation Research figured prominently in at least one of the articles I vaguely recall.
Creationism is about more than rejecting Darwinism, although that is utmost. It is, as ER points out, rejecting five hundred years worth of looking at the world through eyes turned away from Christian scripture, or at least not allowing Scripture to overturn experience. So, now, as the right begins its retreat - and I believe it is doing just that, although that prediction has been made before - we are beginning to see where the logic of such nonsense as biblical inerrancy leads us. It is easy to make fun of people who believe this crap; it is also easy to reduce it psychological categories - arrested development, fear of modernity, even unfocussed Oedipal rage - but the simple fact is these people are, in the last analysis, nuts.
It would be nice if I could try to account for this nonsense in some other away. I do not doubt the sincerity of their beliefs, any more than I doubt the sincerity of Berkowitz' claim that his neighbor's dog was possessed by a demon who told him to kill women. I believe he believes the story; I just think he is deranged to believe it. In the same way, I believe people who hold that the earth is the center of the Universe, that Copernicus was wrong, etc., etc., truly believe these things. I just believe they are deranged to believe it. There is no reason to argue with them, to discuss the issue with them, to try to decipher meaning, purpose, or anything else that might lie behind these beliefs. They are just plain nuts.
These are the folks who bravely go where few fundamentalists dare; they are consistent on issues of Biblical inerrancy. By being so, they show how intellectually vacuous, and psychologically damaging, such a view is. This is the voice of true fundamentalism. They cannot hide behind rhetoric or dissimulation any longer.
When Journalism Happens at FOXNews, Chris Wallace Should Expect to Be Fired
Perusing news before I wrote about other things, I came across this post at ThinkProgress.org. It needs to be seen to be believed. Chris Wallace, in essence, called Douglas Feith a liar on national television, and produced evidence to prove his point.
A FOXNews anchor calls out a former member of the Bush Administration, and architect of the Iraq war. Has spring come early? What is happening? I'm quite sure there are people all over the country whose heads just exploded in unison as a little reality intruded upon their Fox-induced fantasy.
What next, I wonder?
A FOXNews anchor calls out a former member of the Bush Administration, and architect of the Iraq war. Has spring come early? What is happening? I'm quite sure there are people all over the country whose heads just exploded in unison as a little reality intruded upon their Fox-induced fantasy.
What next, I wonder?
Saturday, February 17, 2007
On Lincoln Quotes
As any reader of this blog should know, Frank Gaffney of The Washington (Moonie) Times headlined a recent column with a fabricated quote from Abraham Lincoln. Via Digby, who lnks to this blog we have some real Lincoln quotes. The whole post needs to be read, obviously, but I would like to put up just one that is as relevant today as it was back when Lincoln said it in 1849:
Since this is the exact opposite of both the content and spirit of the fake quote - indeed the entire speech Lincoln gave on the floor of the House is diametrically opposed to the fabrication - it is little wonder it is true. Right-wingers live in opposite world, so it is safe to accept the premise that anything they say is the opposite of reality. (With apologies to my turtle-loving friends to the north who, living in Wisconsin, do not live in opposite world, just in a really cold, cheese-loving land)
The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.
Since this is the exact opposite of both the content and spirit of the fake quote - indeed the entire speech Lincoln gave on the floor of the House is diametrically opposed to the fabrication - it is little wonder it is true. Right-wingers live in opposite world, so it is safe to accept the premise that anything they say is the opposite of reality. (With apologies to my turtle-loving friends to the north who, living in Wisconsin, do not live in opposite world, just in a really cold, cheese-loving land)
The Earth May not Spin, But My Head Does
Yesterday, I read a piece . . . somewhere . . . (I have looked and looked and looked and cannot find the original story to link to; a little help here please, although the piece linked below does have a link also; thank God for the Intertubes) about a Georgia state legislator who has circulated a letter concerning creationism being a Jewish kabbalistic plot; the letter reached a Texas state rep., and now the GA rep. is backing away from responsibility (even though it was sent from his office, on his letterhead etc.; these guys dance so bad, they need new choreographers!). There is a part of me that wanted to be all sarcastic about this - bringing up The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and all that - but I thought better of it because I didn't want to be misunderstood on something as both silly and serious as this. Christian anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are the root of too much evil to snark about, and any Jewish reader who came across even a sarcastic, satiric jibe might be rightly offended. Not only that, but such is just in poor taste; again, the piles of Jewish bodies is a bit too high for my taste.
I was going to ignore the whole thing - the stupid, like the poor, will always be with us - until I saw this story over at Alternet.org. I urge you to go read it and find out just how seriously deranged creationists are.
I have had some very good discussions with frequent visitor/poster Democracy Lover on issues of the philosophy of science, including the truth-and-reality-status of scientific theories, including Copernicus' (I should just use his real name, Kopernik, because it is easier to make a plural out of; now, I've ended a sentence with a preposition!). These are both fun and deadly serious. Having read this story, however, I think it necessary to make clear that just because I question the ultimate truth and reality of any scientific theory (as a good scientist should), that in no way means I . . . I can't even type what is such a ludicrous sentence!
Ahem.
Epistemological and ontological skepticism over the status of scientific theories in no way countenances the acceptance of an alternative that has failed, for five centuries, to account for mountains of data. Epistemological and ontological skepticism over science is not anti-science; it is putting a wonderful, useful tool in a larger context of human understanding. Period.
That I should feel at all compelled to write the previous short paragraph shows that, perhaps, DL has a point. I still will not question the faith of those who are claiming this nonsense. I will question their mental status, their intellectual capacity, and their seriousness as public figures.
I have been trying to be nice, but I just need to get this last line out of my system, and go listen to something really loud.
WHAT ABSOLUTE MORONS. PLEASE, FOR ALL THAT IS GOOD AND TRUE IN THE WORLD, SHUT THE HELL UP. YOU ARE HURTING ME WITH YOUR STUPIDITY.
OK, I'm better now.
Stoopnagles.
I was going to ignore the whole thing - the stupid, like the poor, will always be with us - until I saw this story over at Alternet.org. I urge you to go read it and find out just how seriously deranged creationists are.
I have had some very good discussions with frequent visitor/poster Democracy Lover on issues of the philosophy of science, including the truth-and-reality-status of scientific theories, including Copernicus' (I should just use his real name, Kopernik, because it is easier to make a plural out of; now, I've ended a sentence with a preposition!). These are both fun and deadly serious. Having read this story, however, I think it necessary to make clear that just because I question the ultimate truth and reality of any scientific theory (as a good scientist should), that in no way means I . . . I can't even type what is such a ludicrous sentence!
Ahem.
Epistemological and ontological skepticism over the status of scientific theories in no way countenances the acceptance of an alternative that has failed, for five centuries, to account for mountains of data. Epistemological and ontological skepticism over science is not anti-science; it is putting a wonderful, useful tool in a larger context of human understanding. Period.
That I should feel at all compelled to write the previous short paragraph shows that, perhaps, DL has a point. I still will not question the faith of those who are claiming this nonsense. I will question their mental status, their intellectual capacity, and their seriousness as public figures.
I have been trying to be nice, but I just need to get this last line out of my system, and go listen to something really loud.
WHAT ABSOLUTE MORONS. PLEASE, FOR ALL THAT IS GOOD AND TRUE IN THE WORLD, SHUT THE HELL UP. YOU ARE HURTING ME WITH YOUR STUPIDITY.
OK, I'm better now.
Stoopnagles.
Friday, February 16, 2007
One Iota of Difference (With Corrections)
As a public service, I will give the source of this particular saying. During the early-4th to early-5th century debates among Christians as to the exact status of the relationship between Jesus as Son and God as Father (I will not bore you with the metaphysical details), in order to make the sameness-within-distinction that was thought necessary, some (who eventually succeeded, in having their definition encoded in what has been called the Nicene Creed) came up with Greek idea of homoousios, meaning that God as God and Jesus as human/divine reality shared the same "substance", ousios, divine stuff. There was a large plurality that thought this took the relationship too far and offered up a compromise - the Father and Son were homoiousios, "of similar substance". The addition of that smallest of Greek letters, iota, made all the difference in the world. Or not, according to which resident of Nicaea you spoke to. Thus the saying.
With that in mind, I offer the following observations on evolving discussion over the President in his Constitutional office of Commander-in-Chief. Some would argue that the President is Commander-in-Chief, thus creating an identity between the whole office and one of its functions. A more responsible reading, many argue is the President as Commander-in-Chief, reducing an identity to a predicate. By changing that one letter, "a" to "i", we change everything, not least of which is the horrific, un-Constitutional idea that the President "is" the Commander-in-Chief, thus a military leader even as a civilian. Do those who make this argument not realize that this is, in essence, an attempted military coup d'etat by means of language? It militarizes a civilian office; it militarizes American public life; it places us all under the restrictions and regulations of military discipline.
It is thus that an iota of difference can mean so much.
*After putting the blog to bed for the night, I realized I had made a couple oopsies. First, I put the Christological debates a century earlier - from early-3rd to early-4th centuries; second, I translated ousios as "essence" rather than the more correct translation of "substance". It might mean little to those who don't know the metaphysics, but it means a lot to me who's supposed to know this stuff.
With that in mind, I offer the following observations on evolving discussion over the President in his Constitutional office of Commander-in-Chief. Some would argue that the President is Commander-in-Chief, thus creating an identity between the whole office and one of its functions. A more responsible reading, many argue is the President as Commander-in-Chief, reducing an identity to a predicate. By changing that one letter, "a" to "i", we change everything, not least of which is the horrific, un-Constitutional idea that the President "is" the Commander-in-Chief, thus a military leader even as a civilian. Do those who make this argument not realize that this is, in essence, an attempted military coup d'etat by means of language? It militarizes a civilian office; it militarizes American public life; it places us all under the restrictions and regulations of military discipline.
It is thus that an iota of difference can mean so much.
*After putting the blog to bed for the night, I realized I had made a couple oopsies. First, I put the Christological debates a century earlier - from early-3rd to early-4th centuries; second, I translated ousios as "essence" rather than the more correct translation of "substance". It might mean little to those who don't know the metaphysics, but it means a lot to me who's supposed to know this stuff.
A couple thing . . .
1) As the saying goes, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. We have to wait twelve hours to see if this post by Joe Klein confirms it, or is a one-off fluke. Klein link to David Broder's latest column in which Broder predicts that Pres. Bush is poised to make a political comeback. There is something so remarkably insane about Broder's column one would almost have to take it for parody. Read the whole thing, and try to understand it as a serious contribution to our national dialogue, or the insights of our most gifted political reporter. One need not wade through the muck on the right-wing blogs to find something so egregiously out-of-touch with simple reality. Klein is indeed right. I think not.
2) Over at Talking Points Memo, there is an excerpt from a speech on the floor of the Senate by Joe Lieberman that is so tiresomely predictable, so full of right-wing cliches and carefully crafted talking points (no pun intended) one wonders if Joe actually wrote it, or had it faxed to him. In fact, he could have forwarded the fax right on and saved all the oxygen he wasted speaking.
An antidote to Lieberman is, as always, Digby, who says the following in a post that deserves to be read several times, especially by a nincompoop like Lieberman:
This reality, not Lieberman's phony "constitutional crisis" (we are, of course, in the midst of one, we just haven't come to terms with it yet), is what we faced with. Most of the American people realize this. One wonders whether Lieberman is deliberately stupid, or so wrapped up in his own view of himself as some moral arbiter that he deludes himself into believing he has any ethical force whatsoever.
2) Over at Talking Points Memo, there is an excerpt from a speech on the floor of the Senate by Joe Lieberman that is so tiresomely predictable, so full of right-wing cliches and carefully crafted talking points (no pun intended) one wonders if Joe actually wrote it, or had it faxed to him. In fact, he could have forwarded the fax right on and saved all the oxygen he wasted speaking.
An antidote to Lieberman is, as always, Digby, who says the following in a post that deserves to be read several times, especially by a nincompoop like Lieberman:
[U]ntil we admit that the Bush Doctrine[of pre-emptive war] is an illegal and immoral doctrine and repudiate it, we are going to be stuck in this horrible situation where we are the biggest military power on the earth who are mistrusted, feared, hated, and actively resisted.
This reality, not Lieberman's phony "constitutional crisis" (we are, of course, in the midst of one, we just haven't come to terms with it yet), is what we faced with. Most of the American people realize this. One wonders whether Lieberman is deliberately stupid, or so wrapped up in his own view of himself as some moral arbiter that he deludes himself into believing he has any ethical force whatsoever.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Sensible, Thoughtful, Open, Honest - Apparently He Must Be Stopped!
Over at Eschaton, Dr. Black is writing about religion here, here, and here, specifically his own views on "religious consultants" to Democratic candidates (God help us all!), and his discomfort with such claims as that religious liberals could act as the "conscience" of the Democratic Party" (Ugh! Aboslute Ugh!). He then goes on to insist that he is neither hostile to religion nor particularly interested in it; he wants it to be removed from its exclusive pedestal and get down and dirty and open itself to criticism. He also outlines his own rather secular upbringing, although I'm not sure why, other than as a descriptor.
What I like about all these posts are his reasonableness. I even agree with his point about "evangelical" atheists like Sam Harris getting in there and being part of the fray. I also agree with his uneasiness at the comments of "religious consultants" - actually, i find the whole idea distasteful in the extreme; these people need to find other jobs - for the very same reasons Black does. Christians have no monopoly on virtue, on goodness, or on what it means to guide others for right action. One of the most morally consistent thinkers of the 20th century also wrote a book entitled Why I Am Not a Christian. Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Baha'i, Buddhism, the Sikhs - they all have moral codes that are clear, and in some cases (Baha'i, Jain) even more strict than ethic Christians could figure out. To say such things is absurd, counterproductive, and just plain wrong-headed.
I hope Duncan stops being quite so defensive. His words are honestly meant, thoughtful, clear, and honest. He even makes a point many on the left hesitate to do - he welcomes Christian voters into the liberal camp (although he also notes, correctly, that our torturer-in-chief garnered the swag-bag of Christian votes in 2004). I think he is being defensive because he is discovering that, in attempting to be thoughtful, open, honest, balanced, but still critical, he is not playing by the rules of the game. By admitting up front he not only doesn't believe in God, but it just isn't a big deal to him, he is failing to recognize that too many Christians (I can't speak of those of other faiths, because my experience is almost completely with Christians) are so insecure in their faith, and so insecure in their ability to speak of their faith and relate it to their lives, that any admission that God is irrelevant to another's life is ipso facto an attack upon them and the one thing that gives their life roots and meaning and substance. Black's insousciance is a threat because it undermines too many people's belief that there is a necessity to God's existence, and that this necessity is rooted in human beings.
If he were to take my advice, which I'm sure he won't because I doubt he knows I exist, he would end on the note he has - his piece "What I Believe", and go on to other things. His point is made, and those who would attack him will not hear it anyway. They are not interested in thoughtful, nuanced argument. He should recognize that by now. These people need to destroy those with whom they disagree because they are afraid; what they fear most is that Duncan Black and other like him might just be right.
What I like about all these posts are his reasonableness. I even agree with his point about "evangelical" atheists like Sam Harris getting in there and being part of the fray. I also agree with his uneasiness at the comments of "religious consultants" - actually, i find the whole idea distasteful in the extreme; these people need to find other jobs - for the very same reasons Black does. Christians have no monopoly on virtue, on goodness, or on what it means to guide others for right action. One of the most morally consistent thinkers of the 20th century also wrote a book entitled Why I Am Not a Christian. Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Baha'i, Buddhism, the Sikhs - they all have moral codes that are clear, and in some cases (Baha'i, Jain) even more strict than ethic Christians could figure out. To say such things is absurd, counterproductive, and just plain wrong-headed.
I hope Duncan stops being quite so defensive. His words are honestly meant, thoughtful, clear, and honest. He even makes a point many on the left hesitate to do - he welcomes Christian voters into the liberal camp (although he also notes, correctly, that our torturer-in-chief garnered the swag-bag of Christian votes in 2004). I think he is being defensive because he is discovering that, in attempting to be thoughtful, open, honest, balanced, but still critical, he is not playing by the rules of the game. By admitting up front he not only doesn't believe in God, but it just isn't a big deal to him, he is failing to recognize that too many Christians (I can't speak of those of other faiths, because my experience is almost completely with Christians) are so insecure in their faith, and so insecure in their ability to speak of their faith and relate it to their lives, that any admission that God is irrelevant to another's life is ipso facto an attack upon them and the one thing that gives their life roots and meaning and substance. Black's insousciance is a threat because it undermines too many people's belief that there is a necessity to God's existence, and that this necessity is rooted in human beings.
If he were to take my advice, which I'm sure he won't because I doubt he knows I exist, he would end on the note he has - his piece "What I Believe", and go on to other things. His point is made, and those who would attack him will not hear it anyway. They are not interested in thoughtful, nuanced argument. He should recognize that by now. These people need to destroy those with whom they disagree because they are afraid; what they fear most is that Duncan Black and other like him might just be right.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
The Truth Sets Them Free to Leave, Apparently
The weekly United Methodist News paper, The United Methodist Reporter, has a page 1 story (which you can find online here) entitled "Q&A: Don't Confuse Political Power, Kingdom of God". It is an interview with Greg Boyd, pastor of a megachurch in St. Paul. Wrestling with the political dimension of the Christian faith and what it means in the United States today led Rev. Boyd to insist that the United States is not a "Christian nation", and that to do so destroys the uniqueness and revolutionary power of the Gospel. One thousand of the 5,000 members left.
Boyd, however, remains unapologetic, as it should be.
This is hardly news, although I am sure it might sound surprising to many. Back in 1993, shortly after giving the benediction(? invocation? now I can't remember!) at Pres. Clinton's first inauguration, Billy Graham gave an interview in which he said that one his biggest regrets was his own confusion of the Gospel and what he called "Americanism". He no longer was as confused, and the last years of his public ministry were spent insisting that the social dimension of the Gospel was about care for the poor, the oppressed, service in love to others, and a broader social vision than protecting fetuses and protecting society from gays. Indeed, Graham's message was much broader and liberal, in the conventional sense of the term, than his son and anointed successor's, Franklin. In today's ADHD media culture, however, this is not just not news, but ancient history, and irrelevant to our current situation.
In any event, I encourage you to read the interview, and discover what real preaching means, and the threat such preaching poses to our self-possession and sense of security. We need more Rev. Boyd's in this world.
Boyd, however, remains unapologetic, as it should be.
This is hardly news, although I am sure it might sound surprising to many. Back in 1993, shortly after giving the benediction(? invocation? now I can't remember!) at Pres. Clinton's first inauguration, Billy Graham gave an interview in which he said that one his biggest regrets was his own confusion of the Gospel and what he called "Americanism". He no longer was as confused, and the last years of his public ministry were spent insisting that the social dimension of the Gospel was about care for the poor, the oppressed, service in love to others, and a broader social vision than protecting fetuses and protecting society from gays. Indeed, Graham's message was much broader and liberal, in the conventional sense of the term, than his son and anointed successor's, Franklin. In today's ADHD media culture, however, this is not just not news, but ancient history, and irrelevant to our current situation.
In any event, I encourage you to read the interview, and discover what real preaching means, and the threat such preaching poses to our self-possession and sense of security. We need more Rev. Boyd's in this world.
Killed in Action
Over at Hullabaloo, Tristero follows up on a story reported a while ago concerning an American military helicopter that went down, and how the Pentagon reported the downing as due to "mechanical failure" without getting too specific. Now, of course, the truth emerges that it was shot down. What he writes concerning the way the story is managed deserves repeating as often as fellow-Hullabaloo writer Digby's dictum, "They lie as easily as they breathe":
Could it be that the Clinton Adminsitration's experience in Somalia, Blackhawk Down and all that, has convinced the Bush Pentagon that reporting a helicopter downing could possibly be viewed badly in the United States? Any less well than the deaths of 3100 Americans for no reason whatsoever, based in lies and the constitution-shredding vehemence of lying, power-hungry maniacs?
I shall say it again, with Digby (repeat this mantra five times a day, especially as you prepare to view or read news reports): The lie as easily as they breathe.
[The Pentagon] just didn't want to tell you when it [i.e., the downing of the helicopter] was on the front pages.
--
More misinformation. More time wasted arguing over the patently obvious.
--
[I]n the real world, when a helicopter crashes and burns in a war zone, it's because it was attacked.
--
My God, to be the loved ones o f the people that got killed and have to listen to your government's bullshit about their deaths...
Could it be that the Clinton Adminsitration's experience in Somalia, Blackhawk Down and all that, has convinced the Bush Pentagon that reporting a helicopter downing could possibly be viewed badly in the United States? Any less well than the deaths of 3100 Americans for no reason whatsoever, based in lies and the constitution-shredding vehemence of lying, power-hungry maniacs?
I shall say it again, with Digby (repeat this mantra five times a day, especially as you prepare to view or read news reports): The lie as easily as they breathe.
The Debt We All Owe Joe Klein
I know I should probably stop beating this particular dead horse. Obsessing over the vapidity, faux-elitism, and noblesse oblige of Joe Klein is probably as tiresome as it gets. He will not change, because he lacks a fundamental understanding that his readers are both intelligent and discerning - and think he is too often a self-important, self-promoting blowhard, trying much too hard to prove how smart, insightful, and connected he is.
Having said all that, the headlines for Klein's two posts over at Swampland concerning today's Presidential press conference are as follows:
The Bush Press Conference - The Nonimportant Stuff
The Bush Press Conference - The Important Stuff
For sheer audacious assumed superiority, these win this week's prize for media haughtiness. Couldn't he just type, "Here's what you think" and be done with it? In fact, I think that should be the title of Klein's column for Time. It would be more intellectually honest, and reflect his world-view, viz., I am a Washington-based journalist and author of eight books so I of course know more than anyone.
Is it any wonder he is held in such contempt by so many on the left-blogosphere?
Having said all that, the headlines for Klein's two posts over at Swampland concerning today's Presidential press conference are as follows:
The Bush Press Conference - The Nonimportant Stuff
The Bush Press Conference - The Important Stuff
For sheer audacious assumed superiority, these win this week's prize for media haughtiness. Couldn't he just type, "Here's what you think" and be done with it? In fact, I think that should be the title of Klein's column for Time. It would be more intellectually honest, and reflect his world-view, viz., I am a Washington-based journalist and author of eight books so I of course know more than anyone.
Is it any wonder he is held in such contempt by so many on the left-blogosphere?
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
A Note to Mollify My Wife
I feel a need to clarify an issue here, before I get taken to the verbal woodshed by my Other Half for somehow neglecting religious matters in my blog. At this point in time, I feel the most urgent moral, indeed Christian, task, is doing all in one's power to stop an impending war with Iran. I could sit and list all the possible consequences of such a horrid catastrophe from a political, social, military, and diplomatic standpoint, but for me these are secondary considerations. ATTACKING IRAN WOULD BE A MORAL EVIL. If Bush & Co. thought it would be a political and military triumph of the highest order, they would not hide behind anonymous sources, lie, plan in secret (even as a third carrier battle croup steams toward the Gulf), and obfuscate, dissimulate, and fail to tell the complete truth. As Digby says, "They lie as easily as they breathe."(I try to get this in as often as possible; it needs to be shouted from every rooftop) One does not lie about a moral good.
This alone should tell anyone with any kind of mature moral sense that there is something monstrous in the very idea of attacking Iran. Do not doubt for one minute that the moral-morons who currently run our country would leave, as the good representative from Virginia said in the discussion linked below, "every option on the table" which includes, for targets Bush insists are nuclear, nuclear weapons. These are horrors, ladies and gentlemen, obscenities of the first water - and they must be stopped, aborted before they reach the birthing stage. I cannot emphasize this enough: THERE IS NO ISSUE MORE CENTRAL TO THE VERY SURVIVAL OF OUR REPUBLIC THAN THE PREVENTION OF WAR WITH IRAN; THERE IS NO ISSUE MORE CENTRAL TO ONE'S IDENTITY AS A CHRISTIAN THAN THE PREVENTION OF WAR WITH IRAN.
This alone should tell anyone with any kind of mature moral sense that there is something monstrous in the very idea of attacking Iran. Do not doubt for one minute that the moral-morons who currently run our country would leave, as the good representative from Virginia said in the discussion linked below, "every option on the table" which includes, for targets Bush insists are nuclear, nuclear weapons. These are horrors, ladies and gentlemen, obscenities of the first water - and they must be stopped, aborted before they reach the birthing stage. I cannot emphasize this enough: THERE IS NO ISSUE MORE CENTRAL TO THE VERY SURVIVAL OF OUR REPUBLIC THAN THE PREVENTION OF WAR WITH IRAN; THERE IS NO ISSUE MORE CENTRAL TO ONE'S IDENTITY AS A CHRISTIAN THAN THE PREVENTION OF WAR WITH IRAN.
"Something's afoot . . .
. . . and sounds like the generals are doing everything they possibly can to avoid Bush starting an utterly catastrophic war with Iran." Thus Tristero at Hullabaloo in attempting to firgure out the dissonance from within the Bush Administration. Gen. Peter Pace says one thing, the Bush team rolls out anonymous sources to say another, and Tristero's decoding seems not only plausible but a good, scientific explanation, in that it covers disparate, discrete data, and predicts future behavior as well (Team Bush will repeat themselves, Pace will refuse to play along, Pace will get fired, etc.).
Starting a war with Iran, whether one cooks the intelligence or not, is easy if there are representatives as clearly ignorant AND stupid as the one quoted at length here, again at Hullabaloo. What makes this exchange so unbelievable is the fact that Chris Matthews - hardly a leading intellectual - is as stunned as Rep. Israel by the sheer audacious idiocy flowing from Cantor's mouth. This is sock-puppetry gone bad, with someone clearly too dumb to realize he is being dumb. Of course, the fate of America is in his hands, so perhaps we should pull the covers a bit higher tonight . . .
BTW, I followed my own advice and sent emails to my Senators, Durbin and Obama, on the whole Iran thing. Durbin has responded, Obama has not, and I plan on writing to Durbin again, probably tomorrow when I have more time, and can sit and consider my response. I will not write to my Congressman, Rep. Don Manzullo (R - IL16) because (a) he is a lightweight backbencher in the minority; and (b) his greatest achievement has been failing to get emergency assistance for areas of Rockford hit hard by flooding over Labor Day weekend. If a Republican can't get federal funds during an election year for disaster from Republican-controlled Executive agencies, the this person is clearly of no consequence.
I think highlighting Gen. Pace's comments, as well as the utter foolishness of leaving this monumental decision in the hands of morons such as those in the House would be an excellent place to start.
Starting a war with Iran, whether one cooks the intelligence or not, is easy if there are representatives as clearly ignorant AND stupid as the one quoted at length here, again at Hullabaloo. What makes this exchange so unbelievable is the fact that Chris Matthews - hardly a leading intellectual - is as stunned as Rep. Israel by the sheer audacious idiocy flowing from Cantor's mouth. This is sock-puppetry gone bad, with someone clearly too dumb to realize he is being dumb. Of course, the fate of America is in his hands, so perhaps we should pull the covers a bit higher tonight . . .
BTW, I followed my own advice and sent emails to my Senators, Durbin and Obama, on the whole Iran thing. Durbin has responded, Obama has not, and I plan on writing to Durbin again, probably tomorrow when I have more time, and can sit and consider my response. I will not write to my Congressman, Rep. Don Manzullo (R - IL16) because (a) he is a lightweight backbencher in the minority; and (b) his greatest achievement has been failing to get emergency assistance for areas of Rockford hit hard by flooding over Labor Day weekend. If a Republican can't get federal funds during an election year for disaster from Republican-controlled Executive agencies, the this person is clearly of no consequence.
I think highlighting Gen. Pace's comments, as well as the utter foolishness of leaving this monumental decision in the hands of morons such as those in the House would be an excellent place to start.
Monday, February 12, 2007
More on the Somali Air Raid
I mentioned it as a bit of a throw-away yesterday, and to be perfectly honest, it was something that popped into my head as I typed it, but reading again what I wrote about the American air raid against alleged Somali "terrorist" sites (if Bush told me Christmas were December 25th, I would want some kind of evidence) strikes me as, well, insightful. I think it is something worth pondering.
First, the plane used - I think the designation is the AR-51, but I am probably wrong - is a modified reconnaisance plane that has multiple .50-caliber machine guns mounted on one side. Directed by ground troops (thus, there had to be some kind of recon force nearby), the place circles low, firing thousands of rounds of ammunition a second, usually tracers (better for tracking purposes at night, but also usually containing phosphorus or small amounts of depleted uranium, thus harmful even in cases where they are not instantly lethal). This was the plane that failed miserably back in the fall of 2001 at taking out senior Taliban personnel in Afghanistan; the story then denied all sorts of things that simply had to be the case for the mission to be such an abject failure, not the least of which was the capture and/or death of a group of special forces personnel near or inside the Afghan capital building which was the focus of the attack.
So, what we had in Somalia were a few strikes over a couple days, using "terrorists" (what else?) as an excuse, against a country with which we are not at war, and indeed is a country only in the sense that most people in the world agree that there is an area of the world called "Somalia". This poor, tortured land, the victim of multiple sieges from nature and larger countries eager to control its access to the Red Sea (not to mention a potential fortune in mineral deposits, thanks to the Great Rift Valley) cannot catch a break, and the United States using this flying weapons platform around, shooting pretty much willy-nilly is like rubbing sea salt in festering sores.
The larger point is that there has been almost no discussion about this raid, or its potential long-term meaning for the United States as we prepare to do something monumentally stupid and evil in Iran. We managed to pull off the raid with almost no press or blogosphere comment, certainly no Congressional reaction, and what should that tell the Bush Administration? That, despite all the heat, there is little anyone can do to stop them once they give the order to "let fly" or "unleash hell" (depending upon which Russell Crowe movie you prefer). That, despite all the heat, any air action, as long as it even looks successful - that is, no plane is shot down, no bodies dragged through the streets, no movie made years later, etc. - the American people are OK with it.
To my mind it is encumbent upon us to demand answers to certain questions: what was the source of information that led the US to believe that there were al Qaeda personnel in that spot at that time in Somalia? Were they credible? Was there some kind of independent verification? Which members of Congress were consulted, when, and what information were they given, as opposed to what the President, the Joint Chiefs, and other Executive Branch personnel may have received? Were all American service personnel extricated from Somalia? What was the result of the attack - was the target successfully killed, was the mission accomplished with minimal loss of life and minimal property damage? Was notice given to the current rulers of Somalia that an American warplane would be swooping overhead, shooting what to all intents and purposes looks like laser beams at a building? Was permission granted? If not, why not? If not, why did the mission go forward?
These are some questions that should be answered, and probably not even the really good ones. I think it is a start, though, and it might show the Bush Team that the anti-war crowd mean business.
First, the plane used - I think the designation is the AR-51, but I am probably wrong - is a modified reconnaisance plane that has multiple .50-caliber machine guns mounted on one side. Directed by ground troops (thus, there had to be some kind of recon force nearby), the place circles low, firing thousands of rounds of ammunition a second, usually tracers (better for tracking purposes at night, but also usually containing phosphorus or small amounts of depleted uranium, thus harmful even in cases where they are not instantly lethal). This was the plane that failed miserably back in the fall of 2001 at taking out senior Taliban personnel in Afghanistan; the story then denied all sorts of things that simply had to be the case for the mission to be such an abject failure, not the least of which was the capture and/or death of a group of special forces personnel near or inside the Afghan capital building which was the focus of the attack.
So, what we had in Somalia were a few strikes over a couple days, using "terrorists" (what else?) as an excuse, against a country with which we are not at war, and indeed is a country only in the sense that most people in the world agree that there is an area of the world called "Somalia". This poor, tortured land, the victim of multiple sieges from nature and larger countries eager to control its access to the Red Sea (not to mention a potential fortune in mineral deposits, thanks to the Great Rift Valley) cannot catch a break, and the United States using this flying weapons platform around, shooting pretty much willy-nilly is like rubbing sea salt in festering sores.
The larger point is that there has been almost no discussion about this raid, or its potential long-term meaning for the United States as we prepare to do something monumentally stupid and evil in Iran. We managed to pull off the raid with almost no press or blogosphere comment, certainly no Congressional reaction, and what should that tell the Bush Administration? That, despite all the heat, there is little anyone can do to stop them once they give the order to "let fly" or "unleash hell" (depending upon which Russell Crowe movie you prefer). That, despite all the heat, any air action, as long as it even looks successful - that is, no plane is shot down, no bodies dragged through the streets, no movie made years later, etc. - the American people are OK with it.
To my mind it is encumbent upon us to demand answers to certain questions: what was the source of information that led the US to believe that there were al Qaeda personnel in that spot at that time in Somalia? Were they credible? Was there some kind of independent verification? Which members of Congress were consulted, when, and what information were they given, as opposed to what the President, the Joint Chiefs, and other Executive Branch personnel may have received? Were all American service personnel extricated from Somalia? What was the result of the attack - was the target successfully killed, was the mission accomplished with minimal loss of life and minimal property damage? Was notice given to the current rulers of Somalia that an American warplane would be swooping overhead, shooting what to all intents and purposes looks like laser beams at a building? Was permission granted? If not, why not? If not, why did the mission go forward?
These are some questions that should be answered, and probably not even the really good ones. I think it is a start, though, and it might show the Bush Team that the anti-war crowd mean business.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
"Have the media learned absolutely nothing from Iraq? It really appears that way." - Glenn Greenwald
The title, from this post by Glenn Greenwald, highlights our current dilemma here in the United States, as the Bush Administration works "in secret" to prepare a military air strike against Iran. I put in secret in quotes because, as Democracy Lover notes here, the foreign press is on this story with good, solid information, without the lying denials from American officials as "balance". We are in this strange place right now, where the New York Times prints stories that are Administration stenography, anonymously sourced, with almost no independent verification or evidence. As Eason Jordan writes:
"Only a fool" indeed. Of course, the Bush Administration doesn't really care whether they fool anyone or not. The plans go on, a third carrier battle group steams towards the Persian Gulf, and the media have become an echo chamber for Bush Administration lies. To quote St. Digby:
It is past time for the mainstream press in the United States to get on this story and make us aware of the reality that we face a horrible choice - we confront the truth that a war is being prepared in our name, an air war that could very involve nuclear weapons being used (as the plans themselves are still "secret", there is no way to tell for sure, but the instability of these people should not allow us to rest easily on this subject), and take appropriate actions to stop it NOW; or we continue in our daze, arguing over toothless resolutions concerning Iraq, a lost cause if ever there was one, allowing Bush & Co. to move forward. I truly believe that the recent air strikes against Somalia were a test case; would we as a public rally to the President as he ordered military strikes outside Iraq? Would the press investigate them? Would Congress? As everyone has been silent on them, it would appear that, apart from any actual military success that may or may not have resulted, the Administration won that round.
This is not to say the US press is completely silent. Two articles in Newsweek, "Rumors of War" by Michael Hirsch and Maziar Bahari and "Doubts About Iran" by Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball are both thorough and disturbing. The problem is that two areticles, even in as prominent a publication as Newsweek hardly constitute a united front against the Administration's continued abuses, and the press's refusal to do anything other than enable the lying.
We need to repeat as often as possible, first to others, then to the press, what Democracy Lover said in the post linked above:
We need to rein them in - the Bush folks and their enablers in the press (discussed thoroughly by Glenn Greenwald here). We need to demand better, and more of the better. In order to stop them, we need facts, as much information as possible.
After the bogus Iraq evidence debacle in 2002 and 2003 - allegations that led to war, tens of thousands of lives lost, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent - only a fool would accept as the gospel supposed evidence against another country that's presented by officials who insist on making their allegations anonymously.
We deserve better from the US government. We deserve better from the western news media.
"Only a fool" indeed. Of course, the Bush Administration doesn't really care whether they fool anyone or not. The plans go on, a third carrier battle group steams towards the Persian Gulf, and the media have become an echo chamber for Bush Administration lies. To quote St. Digby:
What could be more dangerous than having delusional megalomaniacs playing RISK at a time like this?
They lie as easily as they breathe.
It is past time for the mainstream press in the United States to get on this story and make us aware of the reality that we face a horrible choice - we confront the truth that a war is being prepared in our name, an air war that could very involve nuclear weapons being used (as the plans themselves are still "secret", there is no way to tell for sure, but the instability of these people should not allow us to rest easily on this subject), and take appropriate actions to stop it NOW; or we continue in our daze, arguing over toothless resolutions concerning Iraq, a lost cause if ever there was one, allowing Bush & Co. to move forward. I truly believe that the recent air strikes against Somalia were a test case; would we as a public rally to the President as he ordered military strikes outside Iraq? Would the press investigate them? Would Congress? As everyone has been silent on them, it would appear that, apart from any actual military success that may or may not have resulted, the Administration won that round.
This is not to say the US press is completely silent. Two articles in Newsweek, "Rumors of War" by Michael Hirsch and Maziar Bahari and "Doubts About Iran" by Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball are both thorough and disturbing. The problem is that two areticles, even in as prominent a publication as Newsweek hardly constitute a united front against the Administration's continued abuses, and the press's refusal to do anything other than enable the lying.
We need to repeat as often as possible, first to others, then to the press, what Democracy Lover said in the post linked above:
Bombing Iran would be a [sic] act of such utter stupidity that any remaining doubts about the insanity of thie adminstration would be laid to rest.
We need to rein them in - the Bush folks and their enablers in the press (discussed thoroughly by Glenn Greenwald here). We need to demand better, and more of the better. In order to stop them, we need facts, as much information as possible.
What Have We Become?
Ever since the attacks on September 11, 2001, there has been an unbelievable discussion going on in this country - whether or not, under certain circumstances, or perhaps under present circumstances, the torture of human beings is not just an expedience, but a necessity (the ticking time-bomb crap, I mean argument). Once-noted attorney Alan Dershowitz has argued vociferously for the permission to torture. The Bush Administration, never a bunch to worry about legalities, has proceeded to torture anyway, and we, like a bunch rearranging the deck chairs on the sinking ship of state, continue to argue whether we should or not. We are torturing. What we need now is to accept this - and stop it.
Beyond the horrors inflicted upon the victims, our national reputation abroad, our constitution, our international agreements, covenenants, and treaties to which we are signatories, we need to consider the very personal toll torture takes upon those who actually perform it. I urge anyone who reads this to click the following links and read, in full (mentioning where you found them), what is written there:
Arthur Silber's On Torture - this is where you start, and you should return to it when you are finished.
Digby here and here for a commentary upon the honest reflections of one "interrogator" and what his experience has done to him.
TRex at Fire Dog Lake on the mysterious death of one interrogator who refused to follow orders (please note the image at the top of the post; if that doesn't hit home, nothing will).
To all these suprebly written, thoughful, and timely pieces (TRex insists on a new verb, "digby", to describe what happens when you want to write somthing, and discover someone has done it first, and done it better, than you; I couldn't agree more) I would only like to add this.
In Peter Padfield's biography of Heinrich Himmler, the author notes that a persistent problem Himmler faced was the physical and psychological deterioration of he members of the SS assigned to the concentration camps and death camps (there is a difference; Bergen-Belsen was a concentration camp, Auchwitz was a death camp). The members became alcoholics, drug addicts, abusive to their spouses and families, suicide was rampant, and the hazing of new recruits, including homosexual rape and enforced homosexual concubinage upon more senior officers all became part of the administrative problem facing Himmler. As older members dropped out, or sought duties elsehwere, the types that eventually ended up in positions of authority in the camps were those Himmler tried to restrict (oddly enough) as unfit for such duty - sadists, and those with borderline or clearly psychotic personalities.
The mental and physical toll upon those who, as members of the SS, were the most elite and most truly believed Nazi propaganda concerning the less-than-human status of their wards, was nonetheless phenomenal. Confronted, not by a stereotype, but a living breathing human being day after day, and being responsible for their pain, suffering, and death destroys the torturer.
I would ask anyone who advocates torture - would you be willing to do what you advocate? Would you be willing, free of guilt, to influct pain and suffering, day upon day upon day, upon a fellow human being?
This must stop. This has to stop. For the sake of the souls of those young men and women who are ordered to do unspeakable things to their brothers and sisters, young men and women ordered in our names, paid for with our money (and our children's and grandhcildren's money), to purposely inflict suffering on others - it must end.
Beyond the horrors inflicted upon the victims, our national reputation abroad, our constitution, our international agreements, covenenants, and treaties to which we are signatories, we need to consider the very personal toll torture takes upon those who actually perform it. I urge anyone who reads this to click the following links and read, in full (mentioning where you found them), what is written there:
Arthur Silber's On Torture - this is where you start, and you should return to it when you are finished.
Digby here and here for a commentary upon the honest reflections of one "interrogator" and what his experience has done to him.
TRex at Fire Dog Lake on the mysterious death of one interrogator who refused to follow orders (please note the image at the top of the post; if that doesn't hit home, nothing will).
To all these suprebly written, thoughful, and timely pieces (TRex insists on a new verb, "digby", to describe what happens when you want to write somthing, and discover someone has done it first, and done it better, than you; I couldn't agree more) I would only like to add this.
In Peter Padfield's biography of Heinrich Himmler, the author notes that a persistent problem Himmler faced was the physical and psychological deterioration of he members of the SS assigned to the concentration camps and death camps (there is a difference; Bergen-Belsen was a concentration camp, Auchwitz was a death camp). The members became alcoholics, drug addicts, abusive to their spouses and families, suicide was rampant, and the hazing of new recruits, including homosexual rape and enforced homosexual concubinage upon more senior officers all became part of the administrative problem facing Himmler. As older members dropped out, or sought duties elsehwere, the types that eventually ended up in positions of authority in the camps were those Himmler tried to restrict (oddly enough) as unfit for such duty - sadists, and those with borderline or clearly psychotic personalities.
The mental and physical toll upon those who, as members of the SS, were the most elite and most truly believed Nazi propaganda concerning the less-than-human status of their wards, was nonetheless phenomenal. Confronted, not by a stereotype, but a living breathing human being day after day, and being responsible for their pain, suffering, and death destroys the torturer.
I would ask anyone who advocates torture - would you be willing to do what you advocate? Would you be willing, free of guilt, to influct pain and suffering, day upon day upon day, upon a fellow human being?
This must stop. This has to stop. For the sake of the souls of those young men and women who are ordered to do unspeakable things to their brothers and sisters, young men and women ordered in our names, paid for with our money (and our children's and grandhcildren's money), to purposely inflict suffering on others - it must end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Virtual Tin Cup
